Talk:Abortion

Discussion Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11

Abortion related to the disabled community

Reverted this addition which referred to a disabled women's experience with a forced abortion:

Throughout history, disabled women have been forced — at times — to have abortions or to be sterilized. To this day, even in countries that specifically outlaw sterilization, disabled women are coerced into abortions.[1]

While this subject is certainly notable, the addition needs to be toned down a bit. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, but how so? I could use a little more direction. --Jacquelyn Marie 12:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Pretty much remove the personal experience, which I have done above along with tweaks in the formatting. Is this acceptable to you? If you want to go into personal experiences and periods in history you can start a sub-section in History of abortion, preferably after Post-industrial. If done well and in detail it could become its own article in due course. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Roy -- this has been extremely helpful. --Jacquelyn Marie 21:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

You're welcome, and I would like to thank you for bringing up disability rights; which is a hidden and troubling aspect to abortion that is rarely discussed and usually overlooked. It is an outstanding example of what makes Wikipedia great... so upon reflection I will give you a Wikithanks and copy this to your talk page for others to see. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Either we should move this next to sex selected infanticide, or vice versa. Also, claim removed until backed up with some sort of source or refrence. Its a strong ambigious claim and we need to avoid those like the plague.--Tznkai 22:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

It originally had a source, which somehow disappeared in the edit: http://www.newint.org/issue233/fruit.htm

--Jacquelyn Marie 03:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The article this links to is so powerful, that I think the paragraph should be expanded slightly and made more specific -- not "some countries" but name names. Rick Norwood 15:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

But which country would you out? China? As I understand it doesn't outlaw sterilization; and to use anecdotal evidence to point the finger at a country would be unfair and unencyclopedic unless we could provide solid evidence it is a more widespread problem than elsewhere. Yes, China comes to mind... and I guess that would be okay; but I'm concerned it would lead to further countries being added... and it could be a significant list when all said and done. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It's an op-ed piece with a few anecdotes about sexuality and disability. The only direct reference to an abortion — specifically a forced abortion — is in a quotation from a poem and some insufficiently substantiated claims about China. It's a legitimate, noteworthy issue; but is this an appropriate source? --Kyd 15:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I hope Jacquelyn Marie can come up with some specifics. Rick Norwood 18:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Forced abortion: Coercive Birth Control in Tibet, has some information as well as a list of sources which we could track down at end of page. CNN. Forced abortion of the disabled: Human Rights Watch (main disability article), Human Rights Violations Related to Women’s Sexual Autonomy and Reproductive Choices on Human Rights Watch, UN Disability Convention (see under "Family/privacy rights" where is stated " In particular, disabled women are often victims of forced sterilization and forced abortion." Towards a Gender Sensitive Disability Rights Convention under "Right to protection against all forms of violence" and "Right to protection against eugenic health programs and practices" where forced abortion is specifically mentioned. Is this what was wanted, or did you need anything else? KillerChihuahua 18:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

External links.

I have removed all the external links. I personally am sick and tired of the bloating that one side or the other gets. I propose we only add statistics, and additional information that is reasonable neutral and sterile. No diatribes, no declarations. Only external links to laws, statements by governments, statistics, medical journal definitions, etc.

No more advocacy groups. Leave that to the abortion subpages (debate, morality, pro choice, pro life, abortion in _____, etc.)

This is ridiculous. I think most of you will agree with me.--Tznkai 16:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand your view, but the links have been present for ages and to simply remove them one day is capricious. I think it was good to thin them (which we did long ago), but I don't favor removal. 214.13.4.151 18:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It would be ideal if only neutral, fact-based links were listed, but POV external links provide an opportunity to those who are interested in getting more information from either side without having to accomodate long-winded, often rambling, statements of principle in the main article. As long as the selected sites are kept within the mainstream (no shock pictures, etc.), I don't have any major issues with their inclusion, per se. However, I've noticed that some things that wouldn't necessarily fall into a POV get sorted there, like embryolgy information listed under pro-life or an article debunking fetal pain under pro-choice, which is somewhat misleading. Here's some purely informational links most of us would agree are neutral: Abortion Statistics, Abortion Laws of the World, Abortion Policies: A Global Review. --Kyd 19:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Good'ol justfacts link moving back again. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

"Choice"

I thought this was settled. I have re-removed the choice as an ambigious term from the Abortion Terminology section. The question of choices at stake, and choice as a euphimism in the context of "pro-choice" are dealt with in the debate section. The terminilogy section is for terms that have ambigious and implicit meaning. Life and Human are ambigious, because they are sometimes confused with personhood and person. This is not a statement of belief, merely that the words have implicit meanings. When someone says "human" they do not always mean person, but frequently they do. This is a fact. When people say choice, they almost always mean "something having to do with a decision being made".

I understand the point being made. That point can be made in the abortion debate section. Its useful there. Not useful in an attempt to warn the reader that we're trying our best to NOT make implications beyond strict definition.--Tznkai 16:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Not settled at all. Your explanation explains your desire and viewpoint, but is in adequate as a reason to remove (from the language section) a very controversial term that is ambiguous and hides the choice being made since that choice is so very controversial. Linguistics are important, and using a term that can be applied to what one elects to eat for breakfast in place of the term "abortion" is as linguistically slick as it can ever get! 214.13.4.151 17:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Your explanation suits your desire too, so lets Wikipedia:Assume good faith here, 214. Tznkai is right that it is both redundant and out-of-place at this specific point in the article. We could have the entire debate rolled up into the terminology section, but it is better addressed in the debate section, IMHO. --Quasipalm 17:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

A dose of your own medicine (Wikipedia:Assume good faith) is in order when you describe my edits as childish. 214.13.4.151 18:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, to assume good faith with you is nonsensical given your vast history of ignoring consensus and acting unilaterally. Yet still I do AGF with you, 214, most of the tmie. I, for the most part, really believe that you mean well. But rewriting a paragraph so that "life" always precedes "choice" -- it is childish and silly. You can only break long-held consensus so much before I start to think that you look at wikipedia as a chance for advocacy and proselytization. It doesn't help that you repeatedly try and add "his holiness" into pope articles even though wikipedia came to a compromise and reached consensus on that months ago. You're not exactly what I would call a "team player." --Quasipalm 18:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not going to try to "fix" this, but here I would like to point out the way in which the word "choice" is ambiguous. To most people who are "pro choice", "pro choice" means that the question of what choices a woman makes during her pregnancy should be between her and her doctor. To some people who are "pro life", "pro choice" means either that abortion is the favored alternative, or that the choice of abortion is value neutral. This confusion of the word is so fixed in the minds of many that I feel the need to explain further. I am pro-choice but anti-abortion -- at least in the late stages of pregnancy. By being anti-abortion, I mean that if a friend asked me if she should have an abortion I would advise against it. By being pro-choice, I mean that the government should not pass laws on this intensely private subject. When the government tries to pass laws to "fix" the lives of private citizens, it is like someone trying to pull a splinter using a fork lift. Rick Norwood 18:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

If 214 didn't constantly keep forcing us to revisit settled matters, then perhaps we could actually move onto something else, like internationalizing the public opinion section or finding research to support the medical side of the article. The article's organic, sure, it's in a constant process of evolution, but this neverending game of tit-for-tat that we're forced to waste time on is both silly and counterproductive. --Kyd 18:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Calm, Kyd. You've written a sentence that, if read literally, says the punishment of women is not addressed as a right. I think a shorter sentence is in order. Rick Norwood 18:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You're right that the previous version wasn't clearly phrased. However, 214 feels the need to continually wedge these qualifications into the text, again, and again, and again, and I can't help feeling it's an attempt to lead readers around by the hand. Just when you think it's all been settled, it gets brought up once more. It's become frustrating. --Kyd 19:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I share your frustration. I suggest you revert changes that are not discussed here. Rick Norwood 22:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Evidently some people really do believe that not punishing women is an "extreme point of view"! Rick Norwood 22:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I have reattempted the compromise we arranged the last time. I understand the point trying to be made, and I agree that it is a common criticism. There are better places to do it. If we can't all agree to come to respect some sort of compromise, I suggest we set up a straw poll. --Tznkai 15:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Kyd, now we have "9% of thought", which is what happens when you get half a dozen rewrites on the same day. I'm out of here until things calm down. Rick Norwood 21:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

For the last time, regarding the language games surrounding abortion: "choice" is vague and means nothing, just as many think "life" vague and means nothing. Women are not in danger of losing any other choices other than the one to have an abortion. The only choice at issue is the one to abort, the laws and the political issue do not touch on any other issues. "Choice" will be in this linguistic section. The only basis to keep it out is a POV so extreme as to deny that choice is used interchangably to mean abortion precisely so that people do not have to utter such a distasteful word (the vaguer the better, in the eyes of one who advocates "choice"). The fact is that no one likes abortion, and even advocates think it is a necessary evil - so evil that being specific about what right is at stake makes right-to-abortion advocates nervous. How sad that some are so oblivious to this linguistic controversy. 214.13.4.151 03:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The more one thinks about the issue the more obvious it is that "choice" definitely belongs in the lingusitic pitfalls section of this article. The oponents of any law that effectively outlaws a certain behavior could, under the silly argument being advanced on this talk page, call themselves "pro-choice", and discuss the isseu in terms of "choice". And the point is this: the word means anything (and thus nothing) unless the choice that is potentially being banned or hindered is identified. 214.13.4.151 08:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course you realize that such is true about "life." If I loose a skin cell the size of a zygot, I'm certainly not going to hold a funeral. Nor

I agree with you that both "choice" and "life" belong in the section on "linguistic pitfalls". The question is, how to get that paragraph in a shape that won't be instantly reverted. When things calm down a little bit, maybe that can be accomplished, but right now I see much heat and little light. Rick Norwood 12:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

One of the problems I see here is that this is a top-tier article about abortion, so there need not be mentions of every arcane issue about the debate here in the states. Right now, I see two sections of the article that talk about "choice" and "life" being vague (the terminology and the debate sections). I think that's too much -- this needs to be a general article that someone can read and get quick facts about abortion as a whole without redundancies, not just induced abortion, not just the U.S. debate, etc., etc. I know that's a pie in the sky at this point, but I think it should be what we're focused on. Perhaps we should only breifly mention the terms in the debate section, and leave the rest of it up to Abortion debate? --Quasipalm 14:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. At the very least, the Department of Redundency Department should give it a once over. Rick Norwood 12:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Reverts

I see that my two edits were removed.

Item #1: The first study in the mental health discussion. We discussed this about a month ago, which is that the first study was redundant with the third one (i.e. gave no new information) and in addition had no source. Tsukai asked if anyone had an objection to the removal, and no one responded. You had a month to object!

Item #2: The just facts website is not in fact non partisan. They specifically state that they are a conservative site. It has an AGENDA and therefore is a pro-life site.

I'll give you all time to respond before I delete them again. Lepidoptera 18:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

We've had a reversion war here the past couple of days. I don't know if your stuff was changed intentionally or just caught up in a bunch of hasty people reverting each other. There is some work to be done on the article, but it can't start until the reversion war settles down. Rick Norwood 18:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

They were both reverted by the same user, who doesn't have an account- just an IP. Actually if you look at his talk page it's littered with people complaining about his abuse of reverts. But I figured I should bring this to the discussion page and see what other people have to say. Lepidoptera 19:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I've looked around at The Pump for a discussion of these problems but haven't found it. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place. The number of people who know about Wikipedia is growing exponentially, and there are too many of them who think they are being funny when they delete an entire article and type "Your a fag!". (None of them know how to spell, "you're".) I think sooner or later Wiki is going to have to require registration. Rick Norwood 20:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Lepidoptera is right about the 'Just Facts' link. Case in point, quoting from the website:

"The term chosen by Just Facts is 'preborn human.' This phrase is medically accurate, distinguishes between humans and other mammals, and conveys reality in simple unemotional language."

"Preborn human" is a neologism used exclusively by the right-to-life movement. Do a Google search, if you don't believe me, and see what kind of hits you return. "Preborn" or (pre-born) were listed at neither Dictionary.com nor Wiktionary; a Google search for the term, individually, returned 90% pro-life sites. I don't understand how anyone can use a politically-charged term while claiming it "unemotional language" (especially when it rejects "unborn baby" because it "tends to evoke a warm sentiment"). "Human" herein is deliberately ambiguous in context: "homo sapiens," i.e. "something that is biologically human," or "person, individual." Emotionalization, anyone?

This site definitely belongs under pro-life, because, in the organization of links, we are forced to consider the site's "agenda" (thus, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, for all its wonderful charts and graphs, is "pro-choice"). Tznkai suggests that the the partisan link sections be done away with entirely. I understand, and also agree, with this idea, but believe that the section should remain, if only to prevent the ideologies presented on such sites from spilling over into the main article. The informational section was designed to be a third, neutral category, not an opportunity and an invitation for mole links. --Kyd 11:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Alright, what about issue #1? I'm inclined to just fix it now since the discussion has already been had, but I'd feel better if someone commented! Lepidoptera 04:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. I think, invariably, we're going to have to streamline the article. If two studies asked the same questions, and returned the same results, it would seem logical to favour the newest one (or else the one with the broadest geographical sample). I think this is also going to come into play in the Public Opinion section; the number of American studies is going to have to be trimmed down if we're also to include some international examples. --Kyd 11:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

It was reverted again. 128.253.240.212 01:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

terminology

OK to archive Ok, scanning through the talk page, it seems we have several problems with the terminology and debate sections. Since I originally rewrote and layed out the organization for them, let me explain what the original intent was. The terminology section was designed to inform the reader of the problematic nature of discussing abortion. Certain words have inherently vague definitions. Life, for example, can be used in science to simply refer to "having life defining conditions" (cells), or it can mean a number of other things. A future, a family, personhood, having a "life". The idea was to get all of those out of the way as soon as possible. The debate section was then cut as much as possible to get only the bare facts. As has been mentioned, we are the top tier summary article. Redudancy and fluff is nearly as a bad as POV slants. The new subsection in the debate section was an attempt at a compromise to deal with two slightly diffrent issues. Rhetoric and genuine confusion. Before we get into the nitty gritty of what specificly is flawed, we have several choices.

1. We can remove the terminology section
2. We can remove the terminology discussion from the debate section.
3. Both
4. Neither
5. Something brilliant.

Thoughts?--Tznkai 18:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

There is a great deal in the Abortion article that really belongs in the Abortion debate article or the Abortion in the United States article. In fact, there is a lot here that is duplicated in those articles, and so does not belong here. My thinking is that anything more than a sentence or two that is about either the dabate or the US should be moved. I use the following steps -- don't know if they are the wiki way since I made them up. First, cut the section from page X with a note "moved to Y". Second, paste the section in the Y discussion page, with a note that this is moved from page X and that someone may want to incorporate it into page Y.

As for the particular problem with the terminology section, I agree that the only real purpose of that section is to inform the reader. How about something like this:

Emotions run high on the subject of abortion and many people use loaded language to try to influence opinion. Those who believe that pregnancy is a private matter call themselves "pro choice". Those who believe that the public should have a say on abortion call themselves "pro life". Both terms were chosen for their positive connotations, but neutral language is impossible -- the use of those terms here is a reflection of common usage and should not be taken as favoring one view over the other. Rick Norwood 22:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the best solution would be to leave the terminology section (and maybe rework it again after the 214 edit war of last week) -- and to completely remove the "Abortion debate" text replace it with a few "See also" links:

• Abortion debate
• Religion and abortion
• Category:Abortion by country

Maybe this is just giving up -- but it may not be possible to sum up the gamut of world-wide political / religious / ethical arguments in a small space. Since we can't fit the debate onto this page, maybe we need to break it up into managable chunks. --Quasipalm 03:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The simplest solution to the terminology section issue would be to excise what isn't relevant. Perhaps we should merely lay down practical ground rules for editors in the article to follow and avoid anything that approachs a discussion of abortion semantics. It is practical to state that the article will use medical terms to refer to the various stages of fetal development ("zygote," "blastocyst," "embryo," "fetus," "unborn") and that it will apply the self-styled monikers of either side of the movement ("pro-choice" and "pro-life"). Generally, in the absence of such a foundation editors would take such liberties as they saw fit; soon, the article would be replete with terms like "anti-women,""pro-murder," "glob of tissue," and "preborn human being." It is thus practical to enforce the use of "fetus," "pro-choice," and "pro-life." Unfortunately, however, the use of "choice" and "life" in the article is unavoidable; there are no clear substitutions for either of these terms. Discussion of semantics herein is thus both impratical and tautological (although, granted, I agree with Tznkai's distinctions of "life" and "human). If the terminology section is to be viewed as a list of rules, these serve no purpose. Move it to the debate. And then prune the debate section after it doubles in length. --Kyd 11:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that those who do not share there opinion in this section, give a tacit vote to accept the conclusions of those who do discuss. I think we should give it another week. After that, we come to the decision for the best article, and all agree to remove on sight contributions that are counter to this convention and undiscussed.--Tznkai 21:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Attempting to fix this mess. Feel free to comment, but don't just RV kids.--Tznkai 23:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

OK to archive

Public Opinion

I divided the public opinion information by country and added information on Australia. Also, the text of the first poll on the American list originally read as such:

"One 2005 poll, which asked a sample of Americans to choose between two undefined labels ("pro-choice" and pro-life"), found that a majority (54%) prefer the label "pro-choice", while 38% prefer "pro-life". In the same poll, 30% said that they would like to see Roe vs. Wade overturned; 42% said abortion should be harder to obtain; 9% thought abortions should be easier to obtain, and 47% said ease or difficulty should remain the same.[2]"

The source listed is Polling Report. This site appears to be aggregate of many polls from many sources; it is not one long, comprehensive poll, as the original editor seems to have confused it. I attempted to correlate the numbers and questions provided with individual polls listed on the site. It was thus that I discovered that the original editor had mistakenly incorporated at least three polls into one. The origin of the "38% pro-life/54% pro-choice" statistic is a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll; the "42% harder/9% easier/47% same" statistic came from a ABC News/Washington Post. I couldn't find a poll that said 30% of Americans wanted Roe overturned, so I used the Pew Research poll which had numbers for both people who wanted it overturned and who didn't (incidentally, an outdated version of the Pew poll listed on the site says 30% want Roe overturned).

We still need to find a source for the Ireland claim, and, also, I would like to rework the presentation of the remaining American polls to counteract the obvious pro-life bias:

"A similar 2004 poll revealed that a majority of Americans (53%) think that "Abortion destroys a human life and is manslaughter." A majority (58%) said they thought abortion was morally unacceptable "when the mother's life is not in danger". [10] A 2003 poll indicated a majority (57%) of Americans support legal abortion only in limited circumstances, such as "when the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest" or "when the woman's physical health is endangered."

No opposite number on whether "Abortion destroys a human life"? What percentage thought that abortion was acceptable in broader circumstances? It's something akin to the fallacy of the enumeration of favourable circumstances, isn't it?

Anyone know where to begin with other countries? Perhaps some that aren't English-speaking G8 members? --Kyd 15:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Subjectivity, anyone?

The fact that religion beliefs are not exacerbated in this country, definitely help people to keep a clear and logical view about this matter.

This does not belong in an encyclopedia unless there is a viable citation available. Salva 04:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

can't find this passage anywhere--Tznkai 14:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

That's convenient--WwJd 04:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Um, is it? I don't get it. --Quasipalm 18:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Is this discussion serious. The sentence was there for a moment, part of a series of really bad edits, but it was quickly removed (by me, I think) after the initial post by Salva. Hence you can't find it. Str1977 18:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

First line

An abortion is the premature termination of pregnancy resulting in the death of an embryo or fetus which is removed from the uterus.

I'm curious about the word "removed" -- isn't that specific to induced abortion? How might we change that word to include spontaneous abortion? --Quasipalm 18:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

You're right, Quasi. I restored the original wording. Someone had included removal into the first sentence and then someone else deleted it from the second sentence for redundancy. Str1977 18:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Termination of pregnancy sentance.

OK to archive There is a problem with the sentance as it stands:

"An abortion is the premature termination of pregnancy resulting in the death of the embryo or fetus."

The problem is: what about twins? Tripplets? There is more than one embryo or fetus. If a pregnant woman gets into a car accident, and was carrying twins, and one fetus dies, is it an abortion?

I'm not trying to be difficult here, just havn't figured out a way around this.--Tznkai 00:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is a proposed rewrite. This answers the issue of how many embryos or fetuses are involved. The paragraph below listed trauma as a cause for spontaneous abortion. This is obviously a contentious topic. Keeping things bare bone and informative is the way to go. Debates on ethical and religious controversies are covered in separate articles.

"An abortion is the premature termination of pregnancy.This can occur spontaneously or be brought about by either medical or mechanical means. A pregnancy that ends early, but results in childbirth is instead a premature birth. In medicine, the following terms are used to define an abortion:"

—Gaff ^ταλκ 00:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Gaff, but this won't do. Firstly, this doesn't help Tznkai's problem in any way. Secondly, it again restores the POV edit trying to block out that a (or more) death(s) occur (as you have done before).

Tznkai, I don't know whether your "problem" isn't too obvious to merit explanation. If one dies, it is obvious an abortion (though spontaneous) in regard to that one. Str1977 17:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that I don't think Tznkai's objection is a problem because if a mother-to-be has complications while bearing twins and loses both fetuses, that could be two abortions, not a single abortion. Also, if a mother-to-be decides to end her pregnancy and haves an abortion, I think it makes sense that while there was only a single operation, it could be considered two abortions. Is this correct? Well, there are many definitions online and I see that some call an abortion an end of pregnancy, while others call an abortion the loss of a fetus; so it seems either is fine.

Lastly, I don't think you can call ever removal of the word "death" in the first sentence a POV edit, Str1977. The truth is the death of a group of cells, or even a single cell, may technically be a death, the the implication of that sentence is that is the death of a sentient human life, which of course is POV. I'm not going to fret over it because, well, I simply don't care that much, but when you call everyone else's edits POV, I have to point out that the way it currently stands isn't perfect either. --Quasipalm 18:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I see Tznkai's objection, but I think it's a relatively minor one. The problem is that the English language allows for the word abortion, when referring to the deliberate ending of a pregnancy and when referring to a miscarriage. I imagine that in the case of one twin being deliberately aborted (and it does happen) we would say that one of the twins was aborted. In the case of a pregnant woman having an accident and losing one of twins, we'd say that she miscarried one of the twins. Technically the word "abortion" could be used for both scenarios, but in English we tend to avoid the word "abortion" for something that wasn't deliberate; it's a medical term, but hasn't passed into common usage. In the case of twins, if one dies and the other survives, then the one who died was aborted; it is an abortion even if one survives. So I don't see any real need to change the article.

And I think it is important to leave the bit about "death" in the article. After all, if you could remove the baby/child/fetus/clump of cells/etc. and put it into some incubator for six months, it wouldn't be an abortion, would it? There have been various attempts to remove references to death. I think that would be suppressing information. We can argue (though we shouldn't waste Wikipedia server space by doing so) on the talk page about whether the thing that dies is a human being created in the image and likeness of God or a clump of cells, but the fact remains – it dies. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 20:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed on the death issue. Tried to phrase the sentances to make that clear that death is a neccessary consequence of an abortion.--Tznkai 22:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Bloodcells that leave the body also die -- so do millions of my skin cells everyday. Mastectomy ends with the death of a part of a woman's body also. I wonder if you are all so interested in adding a note about death to these articles? My personal opinion is that "death" is specifically being defended here in order to personify the fetus. I don't think that you are all being completely forthcoming about your intentions in wanting "death" in the first sentence strictly on a factual basis. I don't mean to be rude in questioning your motives, but I think it's subtle POV. (The POV being: all fetuses and even the zygot are people.) But, again, I'm not really that excited about abortion either way, so I'm not going to get in an edit war over it. --Quasipalm 01:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Can't speak for the others but I have declared my intrest in the use of the word death as well as my POV at various points along here.

So what? Our agenda's and POVs aren't at stake here. Even ignoring WP:AGF, it doesn't matter if I'm a Nazi and a murderer, as long as the edits I produce are accurate, neutral and informative.--Tznkai 01:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty clear to me that your edits aren't NPOV, at least from my perspective, and that's what I'm taking issue with. I'm not making any ad hominem attacks here -- I'm simply saying that I think subtle biases are creeping into the articles because people are looking the other way when the POV in the article happens to be their own. --Quasipalm 03:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, an encyclopaedia is supposed to present the facts. And the fact is that something – whatever this something is – dies. I don't think there's anyone here who thinks that this "thing" doesn't die. Whether it's a baby or a clump of cells is open to discussion: there are various POVs. Wikiepedia is not meant to take sides, so the article should report fairly that some people think it's a human being and should have equal rights, while others disagree. But it has already been agreed on this page by both sides that cells dies, dogs die, etc. So saying that it dies does not confer personhood on it; saying that it's a baby does. I would agree that a sentence saying that it is a baby (rather than that some people believe it to be a baby) would be POV. Saying that it dies is not POV. And the removal of this fact on the grounds that it might make it seem as if it's a human being would definitely be POV, in my view. Wikipedia is not into the suppression of facts. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 08:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I feel like I'm arguing with a wall here. The point is: The choice of which facts to include can be biased as well. If your only concern is with puting facts in wikipedia, then why aren't you fighting to make the death of a breast (a much larger death in terms of cellular, biological death than most abortions) the first sentence of mastectomy? It's 100% factual, no? Well, the reason is, the use of the word "death" in the abortion article confers personhood, which is your POV, which is why you're fighting so hard to keep it here. To claim that you only care about facts is a fig leaf. --Quasipalm 13:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

You're actually both right. The use of "death" in this context could be construed as POV for precisely the reasons Quasipalm stated; on the other hand, of course, the use of alternatives could be considered as POV for Ann's reasons. I think that "loss" and "removal" infer fetal/embryological death: premature removal from the uterus, especially before viability, is not exactly compatible with continued life/survival/development/etc. "Death," if not directly POV, is at least redundant, while "loss" and "removal" seem awkward. I wouldn't know where to begin in an attempt to write a simple, elegant compromise. --Kyd 17:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

It is a fact and not POV that as a result of an abortion the fetus/embryo/zygote dies.

This fact is a basic piece of information to this article. If there weren't no death involved, many issue would not be raised and we wouldn't discuss this again.

(And if someone wants to include "death of a breast" than go ahead. That has not meaning to the this article.)

Your comparison, Quasi, are absurd, I'm afraid to say. No matter how you view a fetus, it is (again) a fact that it is genetically distinct from the body of the mother.

You say, "death" confers personhood. I don't think that follows necessarily. There is still room for the "personhood" debate if "death is included - however: if "death" is not included there is actually no room for any personhood debate, as you cannot debate the philosophical and ethical implications and ramifications of something that isn't there.

Hence "resulting in the death" must be included.

Str1977 20:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Kyd, Str, Ann and myself do NOT share POV on this article, for the record. Secondly, removal does not infer death. For example: The womb is opened via an incision through the abdomen and then the uterus. This is followed by the removal of the fetus.

For those of you keeping score at home, I'm describing a caesarean section.

Furthermore an abortion is a deliberate attempt to produce a dead fetus as opposed to a live infant. Death is extremly relevant. The removal of a fetus and its subseequence implantation in a test tube (should this procedure ever actually be viable) is not an abortion, because the fetus didn't die. Its dead It is a unique genetic entity.

And quasi, go through my history with this article before you start guesssing at what my POV is.--Tznkai 23:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

"Termination" of pregnancy is the word used by nearly all medical professionals. It does not confer nor restrict personhood for the embryo/zygot/child. It also clearly means biological death -- the end of the pregnancy. Why is wikipedia above that standard? And no, I'm not saying "death" should be banned from the article -- I simply question the use of it in the first sentence when more NPOV words are available. And, Tznkai, I didn't mean to say your edits were POV, that was directed at Str1977, who reverts any attempts at fixing the first line. For the record, I know everyone here has a legitimate POV, my concern is making the article balanced, not discrediting any particular personal POV. (I am pretty moderate myself personally, I hate the idea of abortion, but believe it should be between a doctor and a mother.)

"if "death" is not included there is actually no room for any personhood debate, as you cannot debate the philosophical and ethical implications and ramifications of something that isn't there." Utter nonsense. Simply because you don't say "death" in the first sentence doesn't mean you can't say that some believe abortion is the death of a individual's life. It in no way hinders the debate later in the article to use another term.

"Your comparison, Quasi, are absurd, I'm afraid to say. No matter how you view a fetus, it is (again) a fact that it is genetically distinct from the body of the mother." Please read what I was responding to. Ann stated that it should be included as "death" because it is factual and that was her only concern. I was simply showing that this wasn't the case by pointing out that she is not equally interested in preserving the word "death" in other articles where it is also factual. And frankly, I think your arguments are absurd too, Str1977, but let's keep the discourse civil and treat each other respectfully. (And lastly, it doesn't matter about the embryo having the DNA of the mother, take for example bacteria living in our bodies and the effect of anti-biotics.)

I'm willing to drop this at any point, I don't mean to be beating a dead horse, I'm just trying to convey why I think "death" in sentence one is less than optimal. But I'm willing to admit that I seem to be the only one at this point. --Quasipalm 00:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Clever, Tznkai. :) But, even vaginal birth by could be considered "removal of the fetus." I, however, stand by my logic, although I'll admit I didn't clarify it properly. The crucial words, to me, are "premature termination." The majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester (i.e. "premature"), when the survival rate is nil, so in this case it could be argued that "removal" equals "death." Of course, some abortions are late-term, and we're seeking to summarize all abortions in a single sentence.

You're not alone, Quasi. I understand the implications of "death." I acknowledge the sort of thing that some people might read into it. If something has died, even in a biological sense, then something has been killed: "abortion is murder." "Death" is appropriate, sure, but there's a potentiality for POV in how it's read. But, how are we to avoid constructions that could even be interpreted as being POV? (BTW, your breast cancer contention is entirely valid). --Kyd 03:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Major problem with the breast example is that a woman's breast will never ever even possibly (short of an AI and some robot legs in some creepy sci fi horror flick >.<) be able to sustain its own life, nor be independantly operational like a cancer.--Tznkai 21:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

"Revenge of the She-Borg." Heh. The breast thing is valid on a grammatical level. "Mastectomy is the surgical removal of diseased breast tissue resulting in cellular death," etc., would be an entirely accurate, but needlessly complicated, description. Which is why no one's tried it. It'd almost be like 214's insistence that we use the word "gravida" in conjuction with "fetus." --Kyd 21:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

"An abortion is the premature termination of pregnancy resulting in the death of the embryo(s) or fetus(es)." Gramatically inelegant, perhaps, but the structure works for singleton, twin, triplet, and dodecaplet pregnacies. --Kyd 19:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Kyd is right that that is both more accurate and unelgant. Remember, in a world where some girls think they can get pregnant by performing oral sex on a guy ( I kid you not that was an actual question at a safe sex panel >.<), theres no reason to accidently imply that pregnancies in humans always carry one single always viable fetus.--Tznkai 22:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

That first sentence is a disaster. Claims above about my POV editing are absurd. I am trying to bring this article to a place where it would be of some use to lets say...a young woman who finds herself impregnated under very unfortunate circumstances, knows little about what abortion entails, and needs information in order to make a decision (to keep her child, opt for adoption, etc). As it stands, however, with the current climate of editing on this page, I will not be a participant in writing this.—Gaff ^ταλκ 22:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Gaff, Wikipedia is not in the buisness of giving advice, but cataloguing and summarizing information. Either fix it, propose concrete steps, or say nothing, but complaints do nothing useful.--Tznkai 00:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

My goodness, Tznkai, its as if you had not even read what I wrote. You say not in the business of giving advice. How does that realte at all to what I wrote? This sort of bizarre reply is exactly why I am reluctant to attempt any editing on this page. Although I have a medical degree and some knowledge of the topic that could assist in "cataloguing and summarizing information," I am going to stay out of it. (Information...funny word. Thats what I stated was my goal, but you interpret that as "advice").—Gaff ^ταλκ 21:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

OK to archive

Edits by 4.238.136.248

OK to archive Why were these [3] edits removed completly? Even if you disagree or think there is a policy violation, don't just remove, improve. Or atleas C&P to the talk page.

Restoring some of the edits now.--Tznkai 00:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

These edits have been twice reverted as POV. Not innacurate, but pov. This won't do, considering the amount of information. If you insist that it is a violation of our NPOV policy, FIX IT! Don't remove it!--Tznkai 23:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

OK to archive

First paragraph

After last weekend's discussion about the beginning text, I thought I'd propose what I think is a better version. Also, note that the current text misspells "performed" so that should be fixed either way. --Quasipalm 20:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Current

An abortion is the premature termination of pregnancy resulting in the death of any or all carried embryo(s) or fetus(es). In medicine, the following terms are used to define an abortion:

• Spontaneous abortion: An abortion due to accidental trauma or natural causes. Also known as a miscarriage.
• Induced abortion: Deliberate (human induced) abortion. Induced abortions are further subcategorized into therapeutic abortions and elective abortions.
  • Therapeutic abortion: An abortion perfomed because the pregnancy poses physical or mental health risk to the pregnant woman (gravida).
  • Elective abortion: An abortion perfomed for any other reason.

In common parlance, the term "abortion" is used exclusively for induced abortion.

Proposed

An abortion is the termination or loss of an embryo or fetus that results in the premature cessation of pregnancy. In medical practice, the following terms are used to define an abortion:

• Spontaneous abortion: An abortion due to accidental trauma or natural causes. Commonly known as a miscarriage.
• Induced abortion: A deliberate abortion. Induced abortions are further subcategorized into therapeutic abortions and elective abortions.
  • Therapeutic abortion: An abortion performed because the pregnancy poses physical or mental health risk to the pregnant woman.
  • Elective abortion: An abortion performed for any other reason.

In common parlance, the term "abortion" is used exclusively for induced abortion.

discussion

Oiyoyoi. I'm more than tired of this argument. Here are some facts:

• WP:NPOV does not allow us to be innacurate.
• Abortion when induced, is a deliberate attempt to cease the life of the fetus, unborn, or controlled cancer, depending on what you call it.
• Abortion, when spontaneus, is diffrent from premature birth only by the life/death of the fetus to infancy.

Imagining we give a bunch of little green men a working understanding of english, they do not neccessarly know that an abortion always ends in the death of the seperate genetic entity. Death does not imply personhood. In common parlance we sometimes talk about "killing" cancer or a disease. This does not mean that saying that the fetus dies is the same as implying that the fetus is a cancer.

Yes some people do look at the fetus that way.

--Tznkai 20:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I find either version to be acceptable. However, if we want to avoid using the word "death," while saying essentially the same thing, I would recommend: "An abortion is the premature interruption of pregnancy that terminates the development of any or all carried embryo(s) or fetus(es)." --Kyd 21:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Any version that ommits the fact that there is some "death" involved (quite apart from the question what it is that's dying) is inherently POV and inaccurate. Tznkai has said it all. Kyd, "Interruption" is totally off the mark, as it suggests that it could be continued. Str1977 10:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

According to Thesaurus.com, "interruption" is synonymous with "termination" -- and I didn't want to use "termination" twice in a sentence. Excuse me for considering the manner in which a sentence is constructed. --Kyd 16:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

A thersaurus does not claim that two words mean exactly the same thing. For example, if you look up "smile" in Thesaurus.com, you'll find "beam", and "grin", and "simper" and "smirk". They have some overlap in meaning, but they are not completely interchangeable. Also, that thersaurus doesn't list "termination" as an alternative word for "interruption", or "interruption" as an alternative word for "termination". Both words are listed as possible substitutes for "cessation". I agree with Str1977 that the word "interruption" carries an implication that the process which is interrupted can be resumed at a later stage. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 00:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Kyd, if I came across a bit too harsh on your suggestion. The trouble is that I always even when I was pro-choice, detested the wording "interruption of pregnancy" - for the reason I gave above. Str1977

Supreme Court Nominations

The debate about the current Supreme Court justices is fueled in large part by abortion. The article on Miers goes into good detail on this, but would perhaps it be worthwhile to add a bit of information about this to the abortion article or history of abortion/abortion law, etc? -Cookiemobsta 22:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd rather keep it out of the top tier for now since the news will probably be best linked in a more detailed article.--Tznkai 01:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it belongs on Abortion in the United States, but not the top-level article abortion. We've already had a hard time making the article international. --Quasipalm 01:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Precisely. It's far too limited of an issue to be mentioned in the main article. The debate is largely American and seems to be relatively short-term (and, unfortunately, there is simply isn't space for a blow-by-blow account of the debate's proceedings here). I'd recommend Abortion in the United States, or, like you said, History of abortion. --Kyd 17:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Public Opinion, Again

I've added information from an Irish Times survey. Sadly, it's a little older than I'd have liked it to be, but frankly it's better than nothing at all. As for Northern Ireland, however, I only managed to find references to polls at a pro-life site and in a Belfast Telegraph article, which can only be accessed by those with a subscription. Ann, you're Irish, aren't you? If you could help out with this any further it'd be really great!

I removed the globalization tag because I feel that the section is now international. If anyone could help contribute information for other countries, please do! I may attempt to gather information for a paragraph on the United Kingdom soon.

I have also removed the following paragraph pending further discussion: "In most of the other countries in Europe (France, Germany, Belgium, UK, Czech Republic,...) there is little debate about abortion, since many consider it a private matter." Claims of this nature, obviously, are far too broad to be made without a source. --Kyd 00:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Self reference to Wikipedia

As repeated and hopefully redundant reminder, Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy prohibits biased usage of terminology. The reader is reminded to assume good faith in part of the editors, and that there are no deliberate allusions or colloquial meanings applied to seemingly controversial terms.

This has been removed. We do not refer to ourselves in articles. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Small Map Legend

The map legend for abortion laws around the world is to small to read. Leon Trotsky 9:39 30 October 2005

How big would you want it? Is there a standard? The current font, I believe, is Arial size 9. I've added a text-based version of the legend to the map page for now. It should, I assume, adjust itself according to the user's browser preferences. --Kyd 18:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

ABC hypothesis= crap

I found out more about this from my biology class- it's actually really interesting. There is a correlation between higher rates of breast cancer and abortions, but abortions do not CAUSE breast cancer- they simply make you have 4 more years of periods. The reason for the correlation is simply that having your period causes breast cancer.

The rise in breast cancer is due to two factors: our periods come earlier- at 12 or 13, as opposed to 15. We also get pregnant far later- sometimes not until our 30's, when historically it would be at 16 or 17. Since breast feeding prevents your period, the typical 15 year old years ago would have about a year of periods, followed by a pregancy and then 2-3 years of breast feeding, a few more periods, and then another pregancy, and so on. Thus, historically women would have very few periods in their lifetime while modern women have many many periods because of delayed child bearing AS WELL as the decline in breast feeding.

Thus, a woman who has an abortion is merely adding on about 3-4 years of periods to her life by not bringing it to term and breastfeeding it. That's a lot of periods, and a lot of cell damaging hormones. The average female many years ago would have about a total of 150 periods, whereas today's woman averages 400. If you don't have kids and don't breastfeed, that ends up being even more.

Is there a way to integrate this information into the entry? Lepidoptera 19:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Get us a source that isn't a textbook. Your text book should have linked a study.--Tznkai 20:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Those are confounding factors well understood and accounted for as a matter of course in scientific studies. Hence, this doesn't really impact the ABC results, and periods involve hormones, the very same mechanism proposed in the ABC hypothesis. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

External Links overhaul.

OK to archive I have culled the links and instituted a new structure (being bold and hopefully with a clue). Sites with information on abortion itself, and tbe processes, medical effects, and consueling and so on, are kept, everything else is either removed or earmarked for another sub article.

--Tznkai 16:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad that someone had the gumption to seize the bull by the horns. For all its usefulness, the link section was unfortunately fraught with abuse. Anwayway, I moved the two abortion law links back, as both supplement the law summary, and the average reader probably won't check out the abortion law sub-article. --Kyd 20:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

OK to archive

Terminology section:

Text was last seen here:[4]

Abortion terminology The intense and virulent debate surrounding the subject of abortion has created a number of linguistic pitfalls, where the usage of certain terms can imply additional meaning beyond the strictest definition of the used term. A common linguistic pitfall is the use of the term "human", which can imply an organism with human DNA, or an individual person. Similar implications surround the use of the terms "life" and "death". These terms may be used to determine the state of biological functionality, or may be used to further imply the state personhood. The terms "fetus" and "unborn" both refer to the same thing, but sometimes are taken to imply non-personhoood or personhood respectivly.

This was my latest attempt at fixing this little quagmire. It was removed in a spout of vandalism reversion. Despite this being my brainchild, I'm undecided whether its worth putting back in. I figure we can restore it, send it to the folks at Abortion Debate, or just wipe it out entirely. Thoughts?--Tznkai 17:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It's your baby, Tznkai, so it's really your call. On the one hand, it acts something like a talisman to ward off both well-meaning, unintentionally POV edits and fully-intentional, egregious soapboaxing; on the other hand, is it just needless prefacing that contributes little in the way of direct information on abortion, laws, statistics, etc.? Don't know. --Kyd 21:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Moved International Law Discussion

The discussion of treaties and international law was too specific, involved, and overwhelming to be included in the abortion law summary of the top-tier abortion article. I have moved all the relevant text to abortion law. --Kyd 19:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I Wonder

Why aren't there any pictures on this page? They have them on most of the other pro-choice pages.Chooserr

This is actually a good question. However, there is a picture on this page: the map of world abortion laws which I made and added to the "abortion law" section. --Kyd 05:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, for one abortion is not a pro-choice page.

Secondly, I think we're looking at a systemic problem. Since abortion is such a hot topic, and some would say (and I may agree) gruesome topic, with most images we're looking at offending everyone, offending pro choicers, offending pro lifers, and offending wikipedians. The amount of information we get out of most images is either suited to the debate article and sub articles, or just insufficient to the amount of offense it will cause. Of course, I eagerly wait for someone to prove me wrong (again).--Tznkai 07:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. It would only be a matter of time before someone came along and use the presence of a few more neutral pictures to justify adding the gory selections of protesters everywhere. Is there really a "neutral" abortion illustration? Perhaps a number of visuals to back up the text: charts, graphs, more maps, etc. Pipe dream, probably. --Kyd 08:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I was upset at the time...I don't really want to see (key words) gory pictures. But atleast neutral pictures of "fetuses" (note, the fetus page doesn't even have a proper picture) in there different stages would be helpful especially if someone turned to the site for information. Chooserr

The picture you uploaded was taken by Swedish photographer Lennart Nilsson. Since he is still alive, and American copyright law holds the period in which an author's work is protected to be life plus 70 years, we should assume that the image is still copyrighted. This is why the fetus page uses a 19th-century drawing: it's public domain. Beyond the copyright concern, of course, the photo isn't exactly neutral when placed in this context. A bit like having a photo of an adorable, watery-eyed calf on the veal article, don't you think? Kyd 09:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that such a picture on veal would be non-neutral (though maybe off-topic). I don't have a problem with eating a "watery-eyed calf" (not in one piece of course. Str1977 09:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Fetus picture is off topic. Applies to pregnancy, fetus, human and posssibly abortion debate as an example of pro-life attempts at (civilized) propaganda, in the context of that on top of a "don't abort message".

Same standard applies to off-topic pictures used in pro-choice propaganda. None of which I have seen recently, but thats because I think they have less money to spend this ellection cycle.--Tznkai 19:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The only context I can see that picture applied to this topic is in the context of "before and after", and that will be skirting NPOV by at most a hair's breath, nevermind the offensivivity level.--Tznkai 19:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that the picture is off topic. It might imply Pro-life but only if the reader chooses to think of it that way. I won't add it because it is probably still copyrighted but there should be pictures - and if the pictures half to be "On topic" what would that leave gory bloody ones, or pictures of the tools used? I think a picture of a living human baby should be included. Chooserr

Actually Chooserr thats not a bad idea. having tools for each method of abortion may fly. (assuming no coathangers obviously)--Tznkai 21:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'd thought that too. An illustration of the instruments used in a surgical abortion procedure would be of direct benefit to the written text. Also, perhaps a picture of protestors on both sides sparring, like the one on the cover of The Ethics of Abortion : Pro-Life Vs. Pro-Choice for Abortion Debate. Signs, of course, would have to keep within whatever rules we establish for pictures.

-Kyd 21:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Please don't put that on, I was being sarcastic. I have another picture which I am about to upload sonogram doesn't seem to be copyrighted more of a family keepsake. Really cute but not as vivid as the first rejected picture. Only in orange. Chooserr

Chooserr, you're getting close to flying in the face of consensus here. We're still finding it questionable for ANY picture of a fetus, and you MUST completly be sure that the picture is fair use or public domain. This is a Big Hairy Legal Deal.--Tznkai 22:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

mental health section drop off

The medical literature has not conclusively shown that abortion affects mental health.

"George Walter, an employee of then U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, conducted a review of more than 250 studies in the literature pertaining to the psychological impact of abortion. Walter conducted the review at the request of Koop, who was being pressured by then U.S. President Ronald W. Reagan to produce a report. Walter consulted primarily with researchers from the Alan Guttmacher Institute and the Centers for Disease Control, and used primarily studies recommended by researchers in favor of easy access to legal abortion. Walter submitted the report to Koop, who instructed Walter to shelve the report. Koop submitted a letter to Reagan indicating that the research was inconclusive. However, Walter released the report under Koop's name. Thus, public debates in the US as to the safety of legal abortion remain muddled. Opponents of abortion cite Koop's letter finding the evidence inconclusive, and those favoring the availability of legal abortion cite Walters' report, released under Koop's name, and attributed to Koop. "^[5]

Research on the risk of clinical depression associated with abortion has been inconclusive:

• Another study of 2,525 women revealed that women who had an abortion were more likely to report depression or lower satisfaction with their lives. However, they also often reported rape, childhood physical and sexual abuse, and violent partners. After controlling for the history of abuse, partner characteristics, and background variables, abortion was not related to poorer mental health.^[6]
• A study in the Medical Science Monitor^[7] stated that, "Consistent with previous research, the data here suggest abortion can increase stress and decrease coping abilities, particularly for those women who have a history of adverse childhood events and prior trauma." In the study, 65% of post-abortive American women and 13.1% of Russian women experienced multiple symptoms of increased arousal, re-experiencing, or avoidance associated with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). According to the study, 14.3% of American and 0.9 % of Russian women met the full diagnostic criteria for PTSD.^[8] However, in all fairness, not all PTSD is necessarily from abortion. Labor Law Talk has this commentary on the paper: "In keeping with the paper, it should however be noted that many day to day tasks cause problems for sufferers of PTSD, especially as a result of child abuse. Visits to dentists are often a problem, but women often still try to get to them and to avoid all events in life that might lead to re-traumatization." [9]

See also: Abortion trauma syndrome

Dropping this off for fixing. This is a serious mess. --Tznkai 16:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC) And yes, I did put it here so I could leave the article move proposal at the bottom. I'm being sneaky! >.>--Tznkai 16:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Some research:

• [[10]] - position of the APA and links to solid research. Will look up on lexis nexis when I get a chance.
• http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_new/pf_online?f_n=browse&doc=policyfiles/HnE/H-5.982.HTM
• http://www.bps.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases/releases$/psychology-of-women-section/post-abortion-syndrome$.cfm

Fetal pain.

Two problems

1. Questionable relevance to abortion, belongs in the fetus and human articles most likley.
2. If we do decide to include it, it needs to have better sources and no weasel words. There is either compelling evidence, or there isn't. Go do some research if you're sure you have an answer to problem 1.--Tznkai 19:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Your edit summary refers to the removal being discussed. Where is it discussed?--Kevin# 20:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what you're getting at, but you're welcome to help out around here.--Tznkai 20:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. That reads not how I meant it to read. What I mean is: Is there a discussion regarding the removal? --Kevin# 21:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

There is now--Tznkai 21:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

OK. Just curious about the differing opinions. --Kevin# 21:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I added more links to the page, but did indeed copy & paste the text. I was planing to work on it make it more NPOV if I could along with add information. That is why it should be re instated atleast temporarally for me and others to contribute and expand on it. Chooserr

You still need to address the relevance problem. If you want to work on it on wikipedia, you can do it offthe main article. Try cereating a page like [[user:chooserr/workshop/Fetal pain] and then you can copy and paste from there. The problem with fetal pain is its a degree or two seperated from abortion. Its an issue in abortion debates occasionally, but its pbetter served in the fetus or possibly pregnancy articles. Feeling pain requires a certain amount of development in the CNS and PNS, so thats where you can focus. I'm sure the research is really intresting too.--Tznkai 21:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Then mental and physical health would be seperate as well and the article could only talk about the debate and the actual process. I will work on the page at the workshop if I can create one but it won't allow other users to contribute, which would make it come off verrrrrrrrry POV when it isn't intended to (resulting most likely in it's immediate deletion). That's why a starter that others can work on would be a better Idea.

Note: It may sound like I'm trying to inflict my view on other...and on some level I might. But I am trying first and foremost to present relative facts.Chooserr

the mental and phsyical health address the mental phsycial health risks to the gravida. Since the procedure invariably ends witht he deat hfo the fetus/embryo/what not the pain question kinda seems off the main track. I'll let the others chime in though, I may be in the minorty opinion here.--Tznkai 21:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The scope of "physical health" could be broadened if this information is deemed appropriate. However, the evidence in support of fetal pain before the third trimester is lacking. The Journal of American Medicine, I believe, published a report on the matter: [11]. Any potential text should definitely address this inconclusiveness. -Kyd 22:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how just because the procedure ends in a death the pain it endures shouldn't be put on the page for most people ask the vet before they put their dogs to sleep "will he feel any pain" and a similar sentiment is uttered by adults when a loved-one has died. Anyway I'll add it again for I think I have perfected it here. Chooserr

The subject of fetal pain is relevant if hard facts are available, but it has to be written NPOV. The way it is written now it says, in effect, I just know that poor little foetus is suffering and I want all you bad people to stop killing babies. The fact is we have no way of knowing when the qualia of pain begins. We know some necessary conditions -- a central nervous system -- but we don't know for sure when consciousness begins, and without consciousness there can be no pain. Rick Norwood 23:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I checked the three links provided in the "fetal pain" section. The first link is broken. The second link is to an article that states that Republican politicians are certain that a fetus can feel pain, and scientists had better get with the program. The third link tries to give or sell you coupons. With that in mind, I've cut all of the questionable "facts" and left a single sentence to the effect that not much is known on this subject. That should probably go, too. Rick Norwood 23:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Rick, here is a good link. There's a JAMA link that I could get to earlier, but it seems to be broken now. This is the same text: [12]. In a nutshell, "Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks' gestational age, while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks." --User talk:Elliskev# 00:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Strike that. One of the authors worked for NARAL and another worked in a clinic that provides abortions.[13] That taints it for me.--[[User:Elliskev|Elliskev#]] 00:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe this section would be better in Abortion debate. Or maybe a simple reference to Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2005 and the related debate regarding its merits and/or basis in scientific evidence.--Elliskev 00:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Working in a abortion clinic shouldn't kill your credibility, although NARAL is very low on my list as well.--Tznkai 00:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that working in an abortion clinic shouldn't kill credibility. For that matter, I could even go so far as to say the same for having worked for NARAL (could say), but it just begs too many questions for me to hold it up as a source.--Elliskev 02:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Then the current links supporting the claims definitely do not pass muster:

• Abortion Facts.com: from an e-book titled "Why Can't We Love Them Both?" written by a pro-life activist and hosted on a pro-life site.
• Preciouslife.net: an article from an Irish pro-life group ballyhooing the efforts of American legislators to pass the "Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act."
• Religioustolerance.org: the only apparent neutral site and it is a broken link.

I have removed the section entirely because there does not seem to be any neutral, non-biased, non-partisan information to support claims either way.

-Kyd 04:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

A-HAAA! That was an easy jump. I'm not sure I agree that a section devoted to outside links has the equivalence of in-article text, but I'll leave it open for for open discussion. --Elliskev 04:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Why does there need to be a non-biased, full-blown scientific study before something is reported? It CAN be repored that "While no full scientific study has been done on the topic, some believe that an unborn human feels pain during an abortion, their reason for believing this is observations of ______ and _______ and ______. Others claim that an unborn human does not feel pain until _______ days old because ______"

Fact is, there's numerous accounts of doctors watching the unborn baby at a VERY early age (I don't have any ages offhand, but I know the resources are out there) actually immediately start moving their body away from the scalpel that is cutting them apart, or the suction tube that is literally sucking them apart.

• Logic question - Have you ever bit your cheek? Hurts like crap doesn't it? You immediately react when you do it. Similarly, have you ever had a cavity filled? The doctor numbs you up, fixes it, and you walk out of the office with a big "fat lip" feeling and a droopy half of your mouth. You go down to the local fast food joint, pick yourself up a burger and fries, start eating some fries, and halfway through your 12th fry, you realize you taste blood in your mouth. You run to the bathroom and see that you've bitten a little bit into your cheek, and it's bleeding a decent amount. Now, WHY did you have to run into the bathroom to find out that you just bit your cheek? Why didn't you just react immediately? Because you couldn't feel it.

Now, no full-blown scientific study has been done on this topic, but can't we use our common sense and at LEAST say "some believe the unborn human feels pain because of observations of it moving away from the scalpel and suction tube during an abortion"? Barwick 04:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Is this to me? --Elliskev 04:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

"Why does there need to be a non-biased, full-blown scientific study before something is reported?"

Because we're not a cable news channel.--Tznkai 05:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Barwick, your comment has been removed. Feel free to try again with the required amount of civility. Please see WP:Civility, WP:NPA and WP:AGF for applicable policies.--Tznkai 07:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Commentary removed and placed on User talk:Barwick. Those who wish to comment on how I've handled this are free to do so here: User talk:Tznkai, but we've had enough bickering over our POVs on this page for the time being. We've got an article to write people, lets get to it. --Tznkai 16:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the broken Religious Tolerance link referenced in Kyd's post, above ("the only apparent neutral site and it is a broken link") the link was typo'd - there is no L at the end. The correct link is: www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pain.htm (not .html) and it works. Can a fetus feel pain? KillerChihuahua 00:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

oh, and the answer seems to be that by the 10th week according to one study, and certainly by the 24th week, the anatomical structures subserving the appreciation of pain are present and functional. Before the 10th week the fetus lacks the necessary antomical ability to register and therefore experience pain. Experts disagree upon how much later in gestation these structures are fully realized and functioning. KillerChihuahua 00:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Further information: A publication of the NIH (National Institute of Health, US) raises the question of whether a fetus can experience pain, even after the anatomy is developed to sense it. The importance of 'awareness' for understanding fetal pain states that awareness may not be present, even though the necessary physiological developments are.

I don't know if this information will help in your deliberation. I was undecided, but am leaning towards the opinion that this information would be a better addition to the Fetal development, Fetus, or Neural development articles. KillerChihuahua 00:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk page conduct

Enough is enough people. This article attracts POV pushers. We all know this. What we're forgetting is we all get worked up over abortion and abortion POV because we all care very deeply about it one way or another. We are all guilty of the same evil, of caring so much we believe we are right. This leads to hot tempers and little patience to hear the other person out.

This is directed at pretty much everyone who has been editing here recently and a few who havn't. I'm not going to play teacher and send anyone to the principle's office. It has got to stop.

We have a lot to do here. The prose in this article (a great deal of it my own work) is shoddy. The health risk section, arguably one of the most important part of this article is in serious need of repair. We need sources, we need refrences, and we need them yesterday. Several of the sections are place holders I created to establish the article's framework months back. So sit down, shut up, and get to work. We're a team here people, and if you have a problem with that, get the hell out of this article, and probably Wikipedia as well. If you cannot understand the need to have a sufficient, factual, acurate article here, and how that is more important that quibbling over POV, and accusing others of having it, (news flash, we all have a point of view), then you've got some serious thinking to do before continuing to contribute to this project.

Abortion is a major issue in the world today. We should all be able to agree that without the facts, we have a serious problem. We may have some disagreement on the particulars, but it is clear that there are major facts missing.--Tznkai 19:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Heres a to do list, feel free to add:

• Decide if moving the article will cause to much confusion for the increase in accuracy
• Decide what to do with the health section
• Decide what our agreed upon policies for pictures are.
• Vetting all prose
• Vetting figures and updating them with current numbers.
• Shore up Abortion history section.
• More public opinion data from more diverse countries

---

I'm really liking the concept of setting ourselves to tasks. It is easy to get distracted in largely unproductive ventures like bickering on Talk pages.

I'll have to agree with you that the quality of the article is patchy throughout. There's inconsistency in phrasing, grammar, and style which my inner grammarian yearns to correct. I don't want to be nitpicky, though, because I do realize there's a certain amount of inconsistency to be expected in a collective writing project.

I admit that I get tunnel vision. I tend to work best when I concentrate my energies on one section at the expense of ignoring all others. Hence, I've made the abortion law and public opinion sections my pet projects while leaving the health, etc., to everyone else. I could rework the abortion history section, I guess, being that I already seem to be working the article from the bottom up and the subject does interest me.

-Kyd 22:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I hope everyone pays close attention to what Tzikai and Kyd said above. It has happened in Wiki that what were once featured articles became, by excessive rewrites, unfeatured. Too many cooks... . Rick Norwood 23:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Moved the pending tasks to a "to-do list" up top so that it's easier to keep track of the progress which we are making. -Kyd 21:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

History draft

Here's the draft of the summary for the history of abortion section. I'm not sure if I am entirely pleased with the result: I veered away from discussing the social, legal, or ethical aspects of abortion, as those are better served in Abortion Law and Abortion Debate. Instead, I stuck to discussing it from a purely medical perspective, attempting to expand upon the primitive methods of abortion mentioned in the current paragraph. I perhaps focused too much herbal abortion and would like to discuss the 20th century. Thoughts?

P.S. It would make a really great illustrative element if someone could dredge up an example of one of the 19th-century advertisements mentioned in the last paragraph. Such things should, of course, be in the public domain.

History of abortion

Main article: History of abortion

The practice of induced abortion, according to some anthropologists, can be traced to ancient times. There is evidence to suggest that, historically, pregnancies were terminated through a number of methods, including the administration of abortifacient herbs, the use of sharpened implements, the application of abdominal pressure, and other techniques.

Soranus, a 2nd century Greek physician, suggested in his work Gynaecology that women wishing to abort their pregnancies should engage in violent exercise, energetic jumping, carrying heavy objects, and riding animals. He also prescribed a number of recipes for herbal bathes, pessaries, and bloodletting, but advised against the use of sharp instruments to induce miscarriage due to the risk of organ perforation. [14]

It is also known that the ancient Greeks relied upon the herb silphium as both a contraceptive and an abortifacient. The plant, as the chief export of Cyrene, was driven to extinction, but it is suggested that it might have possessed the same abortive properties as some of its closest extant relatives in the Apiaceae family.

Such folk remedies, however, varied in effectiveness and were not without risk. Tansy and pennyroyal, for example, are two poisonous herbs with serious side effects that have at times been used to terminate pregnancy.

19th-century medicine saw advances in the fields of surgery, anaesthesia, and sanitation, in the same era that doctors with the American Medical Association lobbied for bans on abortion in The United States and the British Parliament passed the Offences Against the Person Act. Demand for the procedure continued, however, as the disguised, but nonetheless open, advertisement of abortion services in Victorian times would seem to suggest. [15]

-Kyd 03:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Is this text satisfactory? If so, I'll go ahead and add it to the article (Yeah, I'm a lot bolder on talk pages than I am in the editing of actual articles. Total mouse.) -Kyd 20:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Introductory Sentence (once and for all)

Do NOT edit this original portion of this particular section. If you want to discuss, ADD your comments at the end, below the horizontal line.

Regarding all the discussion for the last week, this is the final version, to change the introductory sentence to the following: "An Abortion is the premature termination of [pregnancy] resulting in the death of any or all carried unborn humans (sometimes referred to as embroy(s) or fetus(es))."

Reasons to change

• No evidence exists to show that a fertilized egg is not a human, or something else besides a human.
• Scientific evidence exists to show that a fertilized egg is nothing but a human from moment of conception.
• Numerous accounts exist of people who've researched abortion and were either deliberately misled or simply did not understand that a "Fetus" or "Embryo" is in fact a real human (as opposed to a "lump of tissue").
• Stating that abortion...resulting in the death of any or all carried unborn humans (sometimes refered to as embryos or fetuses)... would make this topic easy to understand for the average person (not a lunkhead, not a rocket scientist, but an average person). Rather than forcing them to research the terms Embryo or Fetus before they can fully understand the scientific fact that it is a human.

Reasons to not change

• huam being implies personhood. (this is a controversial topic in itself, but regardless, problem solved by recommending dropping the word "being"), see above new intro sentence

---

Discussion on Intro Sentence change

If you have any clear scientific evidence that shows that a fertilized human egg is something OTHER than human, OR why the article should not be made easier to understand by the revision, then discuss below, otherwise keep your peace. Barwick 04:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem has changed from human "being" to the use of the term unborn. Not to mention the increased complexity of the prose.--Tznkai 05:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It sounds kind of weird. What about "An Abortion is the premature termination of [pregnancy] resulting in the death of any or all carried unborn children (sometimes referred to as embroy(s) or fetus(es))" --Elliskev 05:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

In wiki, nothing is ever "once and for all". Rick Norwood 14:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Human is out. While my hair cells are also human, they aren't A human. And with modern day cloning, their DNA could be extracted, and they could someday grow into a human. So, on a real level, my hair folicles are uncloned, unborn, unrealized babies. Is this absurd? Of course it is, but it proves the point that un-[future event]-ed is problematic and that since we don't know when a human becomes an independent fully realized human, to say otherwise is POV.

I still like what I proposed a week ago, "An abortion is the termination or loss of an embryo or fetus that results in the premature cessation of pregnancy." The current version(s) is a [mess] problem. People (nobody I know) talk(s) like this. (It is not / It's not / isn't, clear.) It reads like a (pile of) damn legal document(s)... --Quasipalm 14:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I favour keeping the current wording as it is.

For my part, though all Barwick says is true and noble, would discourage inserting it, because in general abortion can be done to animals as well. Yes, it is mostly discussed regarding humans and later on the article clarifies that, but we don't need it in the opening sentence - "of human or animal fetus" I think to circumstantial (I already considered the 2one or all carried fetuses" superfluous. Str1977 14:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The question of abortion in animals is a red herring. The artical clearly states that "this article focuses exclusively on abortions performed upon humans."

Leave the intro alone. It is correct as it stands: abortion is the killing of an embryo or fetus. That is NPOV, non-controversial, everybody agrees with it. It states clearly and accurately what abortion is. All ammendments are attempts to sway the reader to one side or the other of the abortion debate. Rick Norwood 14:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, Rick, for once. Let the intro stand as it does. Str1977 14:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I hope we agree many more times. Having looked at the intro, though, I now discover it has sprouted plural forms instead of singular, which seem to me to contribute nothing. If a one twin fetus is aborted and the other is not, does that make it not an abortion? Why plurals? Rick Norwood 14:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

That was my point -- it's currently a mess. See "Termination of pregnancy sentance" above. Basically, Tz wasn't happy that the old sentence didn't say that a single abortion could remove two or more fetuses. --Quasipalm 18:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

My problem was actually looking the other direction. If an abortion is the termination and death of the fetus (singular) the sentances implies that pregnancies always have a singular pre/unborn/fetus,embryo, etc. This is not true in humans and very much not true in everyone else. Its more an innacuracy of english, not a POV issue. Anyway. I think we're close to having distilled the current intro section as close as we will ever get it to perfect, unless someone can find a more clever way of the plural issue, or convinces me that it isn't one. Ann, could you jump in here, I know you're good with the whole English Language Thing.--Tznkai 17:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oh yeah. I'm eliminating the correspondance between str and quasi. Take it to user talk fellas. If you feel the need, go ahead and object to my heavyhandedness, but i'd prefer you remained focused.--Tznkai 17:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for removing the original comments and my response too. I agree that ad hominem attacks shouldn't be on the talk page, but I wasn't going to edit another persons comments directed at myself. Heavyhandedness can fall under Wikipedia's guidline of being bold.  :-) --Quasipalm 18:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, it's okay that it's removed. Quasi, I did not intend to attack you personally. If you think I did, then I'm sorry. Str1977 20:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, I saw nothing ad hominem in the post. Ad hominem means attacking the person rather than the argument. I see now that Str1977 has written that he did intend to attack! I'm so positive that this is a typo that I'm going to be quite impertinent and add the missing (but obviously intended) not. I'm confident that he'll forgive me for the liberty I'm taking! Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 00:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
        • • No, Ann, I will never forgive you because there's nothing that needs to be forgiven. I will rather praise you for spotting my typo and for your righteous impertinence. Cheers, Str1977 00:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I actually agree with Str1977's deleted comment that Quasipalm's proposal is POV, but sometimes this talk page fills up so fast that I miss important new (or old!) arguments until a few days after they've been made. I prefer the older version "An abortion is the premature termination of pregnancy resulting in the death of the embryo or fetus." I think Tznkai is quite right, of course, in saying that it raises questions as to what we should call it when one child survives, and is later born. But that doesn't make the old definition incorrect; it just makes it incomplete in a tiny, tiny minority of cases. I wonder could we elaborate later in the article, dealing briefly with the case of twins, etc., rather than going for a clumsy wording at the beginning? We could also, perhaps say "resulting in the death of an embryo or a fetus." Changing from the definite article to an indefinite one would get over the problem of numbers. Using the definite article makes it more specific – "this one, not these two", or "these two, not these three". If we don't decide to get rid of the "any or all" bit, then I'd agree with Str to leave it as it is. By the way, I'm not comfortable with "fetus" as the object of the verb "terminate". Pregnancies are terminated; fetuses are killed (or die). I'm not saying that it can never be used that way, but since to terminate means to end, termination collocates more with pregnancy than with fetus, and is, strictly speaking, more correct when used that way. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 17:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being blind to my own comments, but I honestly think this is NPOV and I'm confused as to what POV this sentence expresses. (If it's my own POV, it's that we don't know when a fetus becomes a baby, which I think is the only POV that is also NPOV in a sense.) But yes, I agree with you about the first sentence you quote being better than the current one. Why don't we have the first sentence just speak to 99% of cases and then have a following sentence say something about multiple births if need be? --Quasipalm 19:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Quasi, I agree with Ann on the simpler version.

As for your proposal being NPOV, try this sentence: "Alphonse Capone was a highly successful business man in the Chicago area until he stumbled over charges of tax evasion."

Do you think that sentence is POV or not?

Not only additions can be POV, also substractions. Str1977 20:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Point well taken. For the record I'm not trying to eliminate any nasty details about abortion. My objection was that "death" implied personhood. I'm dropping this objection now, however. I'm becoming convinced it may be the simplest way of conveying, um, termination. ;-) I think this may be caused by my own idea of what "death" means, rather than any real, documented definitions. --Quasipalm 20:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to make that point – that it was POV because of what it left out – but Str beat me to it. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 00:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks like I'm wrong [16] We forgot something folks, the abortion can follow the death of the fetus. This is part of why we really need to move the article as I proposed. The more complete the definition, the more problems we get--Tznkai 17:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

So to sum up, the first sentence needs to say that abortion can be:

• natural or induced
• plural or singular
• before or after death of the fetus

Does this sum up all of the major different circumstances? I'm fine with breaking the article into two different pages, it seems reasonable enough to me. --Quasipalm 18:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

"Human" should be used only in the adjectival sense (i.e. "human or animal fetus") and not in the form of a noun ("unborn human"). Barwick's concern that people don't understand the terms "fetus" and "embryo" is silly, especially when the suggested alternative is actually a lot more confusing, as in, "Those unborn humans who will someday shape our world." I'm not talking about unborn children, here, but rather as-of-yet-unconceived future generations of people. Unborn is a tricky word, as it can also be used in a context which means "future," so pair it with an equally ambiguous word like "human" and you've got a recipe for confusion. I say stick primarily with the technical words.

As for everyone elses' comments, I pretty much agree with it all. The multiples text is, in fact, rather awkward, but it's really just a stopgap solution. It's nice to see everyone making lists, too. It really adds to atmosphere of productivity. :) -Kyd 20:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

forgive me for barging in on the discussion, as i've not participated in it before. but i wonder if it might be of value to the discussion to refer to how *other encyclopedias* open their entries for abortion. for example, the Columbia Encyclopedia, fifth edition (my fave), opens the entry on abortion thusly: abortion, expulsion of the product of conception before the embryo or fetus is viable. my crusty old copy of Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia, fourth edition, opens thusly: Abortion. The explusion of the fetus from the uterus during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy, before it has become capable of separate existence. i'm offering those here only because they may help with finding simplified, or perhap more accurate terminology. if there's interest, i can transcribe the entries in their entirety, pursuant to fair use etc. - they're not terribly long. Anastrophe 19:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea Anastrophe. Here are dozens of other defenitions.

Also note the "Related phrases: spontaneous abortion, incomplete abortion, missed abortion, therapeutic abortion, threatened abortion, habitual abortion, inevitable abortion, elective abortion, complete abortion, induced abortion" for ideas on possible article splits, if people decide to do that. "Termination" and "expulsion" appear often as the main verb. --Quasipalm 19:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Anastrophe, a long time ago we had a look into other encyclopedias, including the Columbia. I can remember your quotation very well, because back then I was wondering how an encyclopedia, apart from winding around with phrases like "the product of conception", could present wrong definitions with "before the embryo or fetus is viable" - that's neither part of the definition of abortion, nor is it so in reality. There are abortions on viable offspring. There is a famous case in Germany of a baby who survived his own abortion. The boy was aborted but still lived and the "doctors" left him to die. Only after a couple of hours did they help the baby. Also, "during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy" is inaccurate to the extreme. I know some people dispute the term "partial birth abortion", but I always thought they opposed "partial birth" and not abortion. So, Anastrophe, your effort is appreciated but this will not help. Str1977 20:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

my effort "will not help" only if you choose to ignore it. columbia, van nostrands, britannica, etc, have authority. wikipedia does not. those writing a non-authorititative definition, or formulating wording in that regard, who don't refer to authoritative sources, do so at their own peril. per your 'example', that famous case is what's known as an abberation; typically, aberrations do not play a part in the definition (that's rather *why* they are aberrant). one can argue that there are two things at work there - the *intention* in attempting an abortion, and the *actual* aborting of a fetus. that the baby lived means de facto it was not an abortion, regardless of what the intent was. i guess you simply misunderstood my intent in posting that. i'm not trying to alter opinions, i'm interested in wording. "the product of conception" is a perfectly valid construct - albeit stilted - unless you have some contrary data.Anastrophe 21:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster does an interesting job seperating the removal and death into two distinct events, this may help the issue Tz brought up earlier:

the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus --Quasipalm 20:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

When no fetal heartbeart is found, and a D&C is performed, is it an abortion? If abortion is the termination of pregnancy, didn't the pregnancy terminate when the fetus died? Anyway, let's kill as many birds in one sentence as possible: "An induced abortion is the premature termination of pregnancy resultant in, or subsequent to, the death of any or all carried embryo(s) or fetus(es)." Perhaps I should become a lawyer. >_< -Kyd 21:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I think Ann's suggestion to go to the indefinite article at minimum simplifies while accomplishing the same. "An induced abortion is the premature termination of pregnancy resulting in, or subsequent to, the death of an embryo or fetus."Anastrophe 21:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but what about a multiple pregnancy where more than one fetus is aborted, as in a selective reduction? -Kyd 22:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

well, in the latter case, the pregnancy has not been terminated. the pregnancy continues, but with fewer fetuses. it's a sticky wicket, to say the least.Anastrophe 22:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Not everything has to be in the first sentence. We can move the plurality to a subsequent sentence about these (i'm assuming) rare occasions. --Quasipalm 03:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

i've taken the liberty of removing "(human induced)" from the definition of Induced abortion. 'human induced' is implicit in "deliberate", unless we wish to enterain the notion of alien induced abortions.Anastrophe 22:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I've re-added the termination of pregnancy bit but tacked it onto the end. While I think termination of pregnancy is the more common usage, this is definatly easier to read and understand. While I doubt its perfect, everyone congratulate yourselves on working together very well.--Tznkai 16:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Fetal pain and health risks vis a vis the fetus

I've given it some thought and I've been compelled that Fetal pain is infact a relevant idea. However, I don't think it deserves its own section. I'd like to roll an "effect on the fetus" sentance into each section of the procedures. However, this is a very touchy situation because of the potential for abuse. Or perhaps a section on effects of abortion cross refrenced against time line of fetal development. I'd like everyone to input here on a possible structure and some ground rules before we start building the improvments in article.--Tznkai 17:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It definitely does not warrant a seperate section. I think we should divide the abortion methods section based upon the trimester and/or week frame within which each method is used. In this manner, we can roll in discussion of fetal pain into the time period in which scientific evidence seems to suggest that such information would be relevant (3rd trimester, probably), and in so doing avoid overgeneralized alarmism. -Kyd 20:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Simpler first line, per Ann's suggestion above.

1) Shorter is better 2) This takes care of the very rare case where one twin is aborted but the pregnancy continues, as well as the case where twins are aborted. Rick Norwood 23:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Article Move proposal

discussion

The vast majority of this artilce is on induced abortion. Why not create a disambiguation page for abortion and move this article to induced abortion. This should make things significantly smoother. Will move in 72 hours barring objections.--Tznkai 17:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Your motivation is entirely reasonable. However, my main concern is that this'd be confusing for the layperson. "Abortion," to most people, means more than just "induced abortion." It means this whole embroilment over laws and ethics and statistics, etc., etc. Most people would not think to search for "induced abortion" when looking for such information. Just a thought. --Kyd 20:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I echo Kyd, furthermore it would mean two articles to be vandalized. When someone puts in abortion its reasonable to assume they want induced abortion; hence your proposal :)... but this issue has been around for so long its more and more common to see it called "abortion". Yeah the intro is a bit awkward... but entire subject is awkward so I think it kind of appropriate. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

my thought is this then.:

• Abortion will hard redirect to Induced abortion
• Introductory passage in Induced abortion is streamlined with that breakdown in prose.
• Abortion(disambiguation) has links to sponanues, induced, with the explanation as well. This would allow us to cut some redundant subsections.--Tznkai 00:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

My vote is with Kyd. Hold off, Tznkai, unless you can muster support for the move. Rick Norwood 01:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Pretty good sales technique Tznkai; you've sold me at least. :"D Although if Abortion redirects what would be the point of disambiguation? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Kyd too. Though abortion is strictly speaking more than induced abortion, the latter is what most readers would think about when using the term. Also, that it is more is reflected in the upper parts of the article. And we already have a disambig page. All in all, I see no reason for a change. Str1977 10:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

What disambig page are you referring to str?--Tznkai

Oh, there is no disambig page? I though there were as someone here talked about it. I should have checked first. Anyway, the rest of my point stands. Str1977 19:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

With regard to Tzankai's post of 00:25 on 1 November, make sure if you create a disambiguation page that it's Abortion (disambiguation), not Abortion(disambiguation) (which is what you had above). Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 00:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I think there was a bit of confusion how this works. So I've set up an example! User:Tznkai/workshop/Abortion --Tznkai 04:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The working model is convincing. It does eliminate the need for the cluttering distinction between induced and spontaneous abortion in the opening paragraph.

--Kyd 19:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I've looked over Tznkai's proposal, but my vote is still to leave things where they are. The confusion of a move would be much greater than any current confusion that may or may not exist. Rick Norwood 20:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

---

I've looked and I seem to have gathered one standing objection and some quiet support for the article move. I've decided to go ahead and try it barring further loud objection so we can see if it works out. However, moving pages tends to shake things up quite a bit, so if everyone could tell me what they'd like accomplished first, or needs to object to moving at all, please leave that here.--Tznkai 16:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Second the objection, strongly. As the article is written, it draws a clear distinction between spontaneous and induced abortion, there is a separate miscarriage article for those who are interested in that, and to move the article will simply result in virtually all requests for Abortion hitting a redirect or disambig page. My $.02. KillerChihuahua 20:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

i also register my objection. KISS principle. abortion, whether induced or spontaneous or whatever, is still abortion. the article is about abortion. the different kinds are clearly described. or are we to believe there's a large population out there that would specifically be entering "induced abortion" into the search field, rather than simply "abortion" - and who would not understand if "abortion" came up as the first hit? Anastrophe 21:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with KillerChihuahua and Anastrophe, for the reasons they have given. Str1977 21:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with KillerChihuahua and Anastrophe and Str1977 for the reason they have given. Rick Norwood 23:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

And so do I. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 23:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you have all misunderstood (again). I put a link to an example a few comments up please take a look and see if you still object.--Tznkai 00:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

No confusion on my part. I read all of "Article Move proposal.", menu item 22, as well as followed the link to your example. My objections stand, and I concur with Anastrophe's objections also. KillerChihuahua 00:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

My objection remains. Does this not fall under "Readers Aren't Stupid: don't lead em by the nose everywhere."? the article is on abortion. the types of abortion are subsets of the article's topic. it simply isn't necessary to split, disambiguate, and lead the reader around by the nose to different articles. Anastrophe 01:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

actually, the idea was to move it so Spontaenues and induced both fork from pregnancy instead of through abortion: Preg-->abort-->Spon(miscarriage) as well as pregnancy-->miscarriage. This is about organizational and definitional accuracy. RAS suggests that readers should be able to keep up with the more accurate structure, not the other way around.--Tznkai 02:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Let me put it this way. My reason for the move is similar move Declaration of indpendance to United States Declaration of Idependance, although less clearly cut. Perhaps a more similar example is the hard redirect from Intelligent design theory to intelligent design. Most people hear of it as intelligent design theory, but it in fact is not a theory. Conversly, abortion as used means induced abortion. There is very little to say on totallity of pregnancy failure, all abortions as a whole, so who cares if the redirect page is hit frequently. That happens all the time.--Tznkai 03:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'd think that the reason for prefering "intelligent design" to "intelligent design theory" as an article title would be NPOV -- the latter, of course, seeming to comment on the subject's veracity. As for the article move, I have warmed up to it since it was first proposed, but I still habour most of the same reservations expressed above. In any case, let's wait 'til we've completed most of the overhaul. -Kyd 08:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

You assume we object to the move because we don't understand your reasons for the move. My main objection to the move is that it will involve a needless redirect. Few will search for "induced abortion". Many will search for "abortion". Rick Norwood 16:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

This is very true, because the argument you use against the move is rather similar to my reasoning TO move. The fact is that the abortion article addresses induced abortions. The spontaneus abortion subsection hasn't been touched since I copied/pasted the first paragraph from the miscarriage article. Its dead weight thats necessary for accuracy unless we teir off. Hitting a redirect is hardly a reason to avoid a move, readers hit redirects all the time without noticing.--Tznkai 17:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

standing vote

---

Okay, let's all take Tznkai seriously for a moment, and commit ourselves to a vote. Do you vote yes, no, or maybe? If "maybe," state why, or upon which conditions a change in vote would be dependent.

• Maybe. We wait until after the article has been mostly overhauled first. This way, at least, we'll be "shipping" a finished product. -Kyd 20:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Wait. Once a stable version is done; get admins from noticeboard to for input/vote. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Wait but leaning toward No I agree with RoyBoy, need input from admins after a stable version. I do, however lean in the No direction because 'abortion' means induced abortion to most people. --RobbyPrather (talk) 06:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Yes: There is no such thing as a stable version, as the move would create considerable instability ( a change to the intro section and a removal of a section). I can be compelled on the grounds that this is innacurate, or if someone can show me content on the discussion of abortion as a whole--Tznkai 17:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• No: I see nothing of value gained by this proposed action. i also register my previous comments made elsewhere.Anastrophe 04:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

the following was maliciously removed, with an ad hominem edit summary. if you have a problem with this, out with it, in the open, please. this is not "your" page, tznkai, and removing comments without any discussion is unethical in my opinion. begin elided text:

I have reremoved it. you can speak for yourself, but you shouldn't do so for others, especially against what the purpose of this "vote" was for. Remember, votes are nonbinding, as we work by consensus and discussion whenever possible. This issue has not reached the point where we need to vote it off to squash someone trying to 'do' something counter consensus. Any further comments directed at me should go to my talk page.--Tznkai 02:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

this is absurd, and passive aggressive. read the opening sentence of this section: "Okay, let's all take Tznkai seriously for a moment, and commit ourselves to a vote". apparently however, you want a vote presented here that reflects your desired outcome. Anastrophe 04:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

For the record "Don't speak for others, and we're not voting for the sake of deciding, we're voting to clarify what can change our positions and what they are.)" is not an attack, ad hominem or otherwise--Tznkai 03:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

i challenge you to cite, specifically, where i "[spoke] for others". specifically. i'm curious, is it not considered 'bad form' to arbitrarily delete text from the *discussion* page, when one does not like it? this sets a very bad precedent in my book. you are, in fact, acting as if this is "your" page. please restore the text i wrote. i wonder if you'll merely delete *these* comments as well? Anastrophe 04:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I and every other editor has a right to attempt to do what they see fit (within reason) to pursuing Wikipedia's goals. LKuckly, our actions can be reversed, information is maintained in histoyr. By "speaking for others" I meant your repeating of the "votes" of others. There is no reason not to wait the time for those who have left comments to repeat them as they see fit. Yes, it is bad form to remove content because of petty motivation. If you wish however, to accuse me of doing things because of such intentions, you are attacking my character, something seperate from writing this article. The discussion of my character on this page ends now. You can either drop it, talk it to user talk, file a request for comment, file a request for mediation, or file a request for arbitration. I repeat, this ends now--Tznkai 04:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

restore my text that you deleted. let others decide if it was inappropriate. Anastrophe 04:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Herbal abortion: Ethics question.

Kudos to Kyd for a much improved history of abortion subsection. This brings up an ugly ethics question hwoever. As Wikipedia is an encylopedia it is, in one sense, our job to catalogue all information that is worth cataloguing. At the same time, we provide a great deal of information to a lot of people who don't have the patience or wisdom to look at other sources.

The fact that certain herbs are poisonous or are otherwise suited to inducing an abortion is clear. What is not clear to me is what we do about it. Currently the information is burried in the history of abortion section, but I'm deciding whether or not to include it in the "other methods." My instinct is to, but I want everyone's input first.--Tznkai 00:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Should absolutely be included... can't remember why it was removed before. With proper disclaimers (which we did have) it is notable information as people are always interested to know "alternative" methods for things. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Concur with RoyBoy, add to "other methods. It has been, and is currently being, used. Herbal Fertility Control: Contraception and Abortion, Herbal Abortion, and if anyone wants to go to the library, there is a Listmania list on Amazon with some sources: Listmania! Herbal Abortion. If you need more sources to cite I will add. I don't see where this is an ethics question, am I being terribly dense? Wikipedia entries don't debate ethics, they report ethics issues. The ethics are about abortion, covered in the article in the section 6, the abortion debate. KillerChihuahua 00:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

For herbs the ethics are a little different; as these methods can indeed be dangerous... and to speak of them in detail without proper disclaimers could be viewed as "promotion" of medically unsanctioned methods of abortion. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the need for "disclaimers" so much as the need for accuracy and proper citing of sources. If we report accurately the high risk of death and serious problems will be in the segment. I *still* don't see how the ethics are different - it sounds suspiciously POV to me. Are you talking about the ethics of including herbal abortions in the article? or about administering them? The first is nonsense, the second is not germane. KillerChihuahua 01:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Killer, you're new on this article. So I'm going to let this one slide, but accusations of POV and other failures of WP:AGF, or even hints of them don't fly around here anymore. I am sick and tired of it, and I have been removing them, and thus far have recieved no objections other than the editor such effected, IF even them. So, cut it out.--Tznkai 17:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Meh, either way I want it included. :"D - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Tznkai, for the kudos. =^.^= On the subject of herbal abortion: there is a certain prudence, a sense of moral responsiblity, involved in writing. Do we refrain from mentioning herbal abortion, apart from in a historical context, lest a desperate girl should munch some tansy and land herself in the ER? It's a thorny question, isn't it? However, I say err on the side of thoroughness -- with caution, of course. -Kyd 08:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Just be careful not to write something that will get wikipedia sued. Rick Norwood 16:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

We've got a lovley little universal disclaimer in place, so Wikipedia passes through fruedian ethics system just fine. The problem is analgous to writing down the preperation process to a pipe bomb. How detailed do we make it?--Tznkai 17:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Debating the ethics of including relevant, factual information with adequate sourcing is in direct violation of WP:NPOV. WP:ISNOT a howto manual, nor censored, nor an ethical manual, and as long as we follow WP guidelines there is, ipso facto, no issue. KillerChihuahua 17:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

we're debating the ethics of writing it at all, not discussing the herbal ethics in the article.--Tznkai 18:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Which is what I was addressing, apparently I was unclear. WP is not censored. To not include relevant, factual information for which there is adequate sourcing for "ethical" reasons is in direct violation of WP:NPOV. KillerChihuahua 18:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

KC, stop using WP:NPOV as a bludgeon. This is meant to be a serious discussions on the implications and extent to what we write. Complete uncensorship would include shock images. There is a balance to be made for all the conflicting needs and judgement calls to be made--Tznkai 20:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

childbirth carries risks, and is dangerous. legal, surgically induced abortion carries risks, and is dangerous. illegal, surgically induced abortion carries risks, and is dangerous. self-induced abortion with impromptu 'tool's carries risks, and is dangerous. having a friend kick you in the belly while pregnant carries risks, and is dangerous. consuming various herbal abortifacients carries risks, and is dangerous. what part of the formula am i missing that would lead to removal of herbal abortifacients? Anastrophe 18:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Its a detail level thing. Everyone has heard the stories about physical trauma, but less so on the risks of herbal abortifcation.--Tznkai 20:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

how does that argue in favor of removing information, if that's the case? it is precisely that - if indeed fewer people are aware of abortifacient herbs and the risks therein, it argues to *expanding* the section, rather than removing it, does it not?.Anastrophe 23:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Tznkai and all here: I apologise if I in any way seemed to be using NPOV as a "bludgeon" and I am indeed being serious - it seemed to me by responses that I must have been unclear in how I thought NPOV applied, and I was attempting to clarify. That said, No one has as yet told me how leaving out a method of abortion which is common enough to have a Listmania list on Amazon is something Wikipedia should censor from an article which is about abortion. If the issue is that less people know of the risks of herbal abortion, then as mentioned here already by several people, health risks should also be added, which I would expect anyway as the risks are considerable and well documented.

If I err, please let me know. If I am ever unclear, ask and I will try to clarify. That said, it really isn't necessary to accuse me twice in one section of the same thing, and out of chronological order, without waiting for me to respond, especially as your second accusation followed immediately after a post which I had begun with "apparently I was unclear". KillerChihuahua 21:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I apologize if I came on to strong, but seeing NPOV cited causes a kneejerk reaction after a while. Now as for this, I do not disagree on its notability, and I remind you all I mentioned I was leaning towards including it in the first place. I wished to gauge everyones opinions and thoughts. At any rate, I again bring up the pipe bomb analogy. Pipe bombs are notable. We know what they're made out of. We know how they are prepared. (well, I don't, but Wikipedians do). The question remains should we. Now, pipe bombs are used almost exclusivly for terror and murder, and abortion is not a tool of terrorism generally, but the question of moral and ethical restraint becomes relevant. I'm fine with naming the herbs as long as we classify them as poisons (which they are), but we suggests not including preperations of abortifcant concoctions if we should find them.--Tznkai 04:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Picture survey

Pictures are something this article has lacked for a while, with the exception of Kyd's map. This has been a boon to us, because we've managed to avoid a huge set of POV debates oer them in the time I've been around. That having been said it puts a cieling on the article quality we can achieve. Lets brainstorm and set some ground rules for what we can have. The last suggestion we heard was for tools. I think that might actually work.--Tznkai 03:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

in what way is the existing image inadequate? The quality of an article is found in the words, not the images at least wrt to contentious political issues, as opposed to articles about French Impressionism. as it stands, this article appears to be a pretty remarkable example of consensus building and compromise, on one of the two or possibly three most contentious topics in popular discourse. i don't see how additional images will illuminate the issue further. The article is less about a medical procedure than it is about a divisive cultural issue. just my 3.14159 cents.Anastrophe 04:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I would disagree strongly. Abortion is not about the cultural issue, we leave that to the debate article. Abortion is a top tier survey article--Tznkai 17:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's not imperative that the article feature images. But images, in conjuction with strong written text, could help to elevate us to Featured Article quality. Here are some obvious things we'd want to avoid:

• Shock images: Images intended to shock the viewer into a specific conclusion about abortion. No snapshots of aborted fetuses or victims of back-alley abortions. It'd be both indefensibly POV and an affront to good taste.
• POV images: Some otherwise neutral images, within the context of the article, could be interpreted as POV. Such as a fetus (I can't think of a pro-choice analogue right now).
• Copyrighted images: This should be obvious. Do we want to get sued?

I think the images we select should be thematic. A picture of the medical instruments used to perform an abortion could be used to illustrate "Methods of Abortion," a picture of protesters on boths sides could be used for "Abortion Debate," and so forth. I've spent the last two days searching the internet for something with which to illustrate History (no luck!). I would really like to find an example of a Victorian ad, or, otherwise, a Medieval or ancient drawing featuring abortion, the preparation of an abortifacient potion, etc. -Kyd 08:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I think pictures belong in the articles on embryo and on fetus, not here. Pictures of medical procedures cannot help but be shocking. Rick Norwood 16:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

We can avoid medical procedures for the latest abortion terms, but drug induced should be fine, and we can simply have a picture of a metal tray with the tools used for the other procedures, as well as a snapshot of one of the pills, etc.--17:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

IMHO pictures are not necessary in any way. I concur with Anastrophe's statement above. KillerChihuahua 17:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Clarification: The statement referenced is "i don't see how additional images will illuminate the issue further. " KillerChihuahua 17:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

change to "Health Risks"

"Use of other methods (e.g., overdose of various drugs, insertion of various objects into uterus) for abortion is very dangerous, carrying a significantly elevated risk for permenant injury or death compared to abortions done by physicians." while i happen to believe this is probably right, without cititation i don't see it as explicitly NPOV compared to the previous version. i would recommend reverting until a citation can be supplied.Anastrophe 18:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't really feel the need to pull a specific citation on this one. Overdoses are by nature dangerous. Insertion of objects into your body, especially those which are unclean or SHARP is dangerous. Do you have a serious objection that 99.1% of people who can understand that sentance will agree? Thats damn close to consensus. We hardly need citations for everything, least of all that overdosing on a drug is more dangerous than a trained physian giving you a measured amount of hormones.--Tznkai 20:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Tznkai. Points that are obscure need references. To reference this is like the warning "Coffee is sometimes hot," on coffee cups. Rick Norwood 20:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Strongly concur with Tznkai and Rick Norwood. A cite is not needed for the patently obvious. "Overdose and hangers are not paralel to surgery" is fairly obvious. KillerChihuahua 21:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

not to be argumentative, but more often than not, when someone says "it's obvious" is when i begin to question it. that's all this really boils down to. i happily withdraw my objection. Anastrophe 23:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Sources for Statistics

In the US, there are good statistics available from the CDC at Abortion Surveillance. Worldwide statistics can be found at Abortion statistics and other data, which is a secondary source but seems to be a solid one, and which cites its primary sources.

What other sources are needed? In other words, what do you need sources to cite for? I'm actually fairly good at finding sources, and hopefully will be able to help in that area of the "to do" list. If I can help, just let me know what is wanted. KillerChihuahua 22:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Havn't gotten a chance myself, but we were going to update all the statistics if we can. If you would, please coordinate with Kyd, she's very good at this sort of thing. Of particular intrest to me is our opening statistics in "reasons for an abortion". CDC and AGI are my favorites (AGI is reputable, as I recall they keep all their statistics, just advertise the ones favorable to the pro-choice cause)--Tznkai 04:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Mmm, sources! Generally, I try to avoid biased ones. I rejected an additional source on public opinion in the U.K., a poll conducted by MORI, because it was commissioned by British Pregnancy Advisory Services. I would really, really loathe to have to reject AGI on the same grounds. Really, though, I don't have any particular line of expertise. Mostly, I just plumb the depths of Google until I turn something up.

Any pointers for the "Mental Health" section? I'm considering mounting a rewrite. -Kyd 05:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Archiving

Awp! Jesus joseph and mary, (I just saw God and I think he was driving a Cadilac) we need to archive badly. We've got duplicate sections (my fault). Could everyone run through discussions they were recently indovled in and sign them offas closed? As for those being duplicated, those most recently involved, could they please collapse them into a single new section? Thanks!--Tznkai 04:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The page is huge, indeed. our, uh, conflict with the vote had much to do - on my part - with the fact that there were *three* separate places that it was being discussed/voted upon, on this one discussion page. i, er, 'vote' that at minimum, all the 'article move' discussion be archived, and that discussion start fresh. (mind you, i know precisely zero about the archiving process, so i don't know what is or is not possible or appropriate). cheers. Anastrophe 05:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)