Talk:Abortion/Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

→

RfC - NPOV approach and Pro-Lick's editing behaviour

An RfC has been made at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology regarding the following:

an NPOV approach to the introductory line
an NPOV approach to : Hypothesized Abortion Breast Cancer link, Mental Health (particularly negative effects), and the Pro-Life viewpoint
the editing behaviour of Pro-Lick - mainly in regards to the user's refusal to reach consensus before altering article content on a particularly heated and controversial topic.

Let's see what happens....DonaNobisPacem 06:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I'm going to be blunt: this article had gotten stuck in a rut due to the constant bickering from all sides. We can't even come to a consensus about the very first sentence, much less anything else. In the meantime, so much effort has been expended on fighting each other that the article has been allowed to rot and editors have left in disgust. Pro's editing style may offend the over-cautious, but by being bold and being competent, he's fixed a lot of really awful sections. Fundamentally, he's moved this article into being based on evidence, not on bipartisan compromise. This is as it should be and I support it. This article needed a reboot, and now it's gotten one. I will vigorously oppose any attempt to punish Pro's efforts and return this article to its previous, decayed state. Alienus 06:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Even though I question DonaNobisPacem's motivation, I appreciate the RFC. I had already added RFCs in 2 different sections. I definitely don't mind more and differnt people than our present group. With any luck, they'll remind the parties involved that consensus is only an article content tool when used in determining what the majority of WP:RS sources think, as is also made clear on the consensus page and WP:NPOV#Undue weight.--Pro-Lick 07:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you arguing WP:NPOV#Undue weight supports your position? Because I don't see that. The definitions and sources you have accumulated are all well and good; but the "viewpoint" the fetus dies from an abortion is held by the vast majority of people you actually understand what an abortion does. I've been busy recently but I do want to bring in more views on putting murder mention in the following paragraph allowing us to remove "death" or if both should be there. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 08:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight is policy. The section topic is RFC. If you'd like to pursue the use of murder, do so in a different section. If you can show mentioning it is not undue weight, then I have no problem with it.--Pro-Lick 08:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not doubting undue weight in the least, I'm doubting your ability to apply it neutrally. Frankly the Encarta mention of "death" in their definition undercuts about every single policy point you've made here regarding death. The only one that might stick is consensus of sources; but I would again reiterate many sources don't have the same summary style goals we do. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

One more time: the issue is not whether, in some technical sense, abortion involves something dying. Obviously and uncontroversially, it does. The issue is whether we should use a definition that specifically mentions "death". If we look at the definitions out there, it looks like they generally do not. Alienus 08:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You see what Alienus just did Pro-Lick; said exactly what you are saying but in summary form; and not being confrontational. Just putting it out there for consideration instead of trying to force it on the article. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 08:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Opps forgot to answer Alienus. What is also generally true is the definitions "out there" are not encyclopedic. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, we're here to paraphrase or quote what's out there, not replace it with original research. Alienus 17:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Took me a while to spot this nugget; where the heck did original research come from?! This isn't about OR! Its about acknowledging most sources do not have the stylistic (summary) demands encyclopedias do; and no source I know of has the same editorial demands to take in all points of view; something we are forced to adhere to because of Wikipedia's open and transparent process. Taking a "consensus of sources" does not cut it for responsible editors who understand the need to frame the collective knowledge and P'sOV into a coherant neutral whole. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Another lie from the anti-abortion let's-ignore-Wiki-policy-and-reality team: On the RfC page, it claims I drove Severa (kyd) away, yet, quite obviously, he/she/it is still here.--Pro-Lick 17:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

He/she/it hadn't edited this article since Monday. And, if you're such a stickler for adhering to Wiki-policy, perhaps you should investigate WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. -Severa ?? | !!! 18:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

As shown by the edit logs, this is not the first time you've wondered off for several days after claiming you were tired of it all. Sorry, but I don't buy unsourced pleas for sympathy that are blatant requests for POV support. As for civil and NPA, take a look at the RfC they posted before you start suggesting I did anything that hasn't already been publicly accepted and unpunished. I guess that tells you how much those policies mean.--Pro-Lick 18:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The edit logs show that your editing pattern is very disruptive and seems immature to many. There is not much else to say. Good 15:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

medical sources

Moved to : Talk:Abortion/First paragraph#medical sources

New proposal - subpages

It seems like progress on this article comes to a halt when debate fills up the talk page. One thing that other controversial and active pages have done is to create topical subpages (see Talk:Jesus). This way, all the debate can be in one place, and the basic talk page is left uncluttered for other 'priorities'. I would propose creating Talk:Abortion/First paragraph, and moving appropriate threads there. Does that sound like a good idea?--Andrew c 21:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

As long as the link is noticeable on the talk page, I think it's an excellent idea....DonaNobisPacem 05:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't bother me. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I would welcome this. AvB ÷ talk 11:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --WikiCats 12:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be more fun to call it Talk:Abortion/KillKillKill.--Pro-Lick 16:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Please start moving discussion to Talk:Abortion/First paragraph

I have created Talk:Abortion/First paragraph, and moved some of the older topics to that page. Since there seems to be some active discussion going on under "22 Is Abortion the death 'of a cell'", "28 Before able to survive", and "32 medical sources", I have left those sections in place for the time being. So I encourage everyone to start discussing this topic on the newly created subpage! If this system works, I may suggest subpages for other common topics, such as pregnancy definition, and ABC. --Andrew c 19:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved those sections, too, leaving links to their new locations in their old spaces. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, thank you for this, and for always having a level head when dealing with the heated debates that sometimes insue on this page. Kudos!--Andrew c 06:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Always having a level head? I wish I did that, but thanks for the vote of confidence. We'll get that darn encyclopedia written, somehow. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Andrew_c, I've taken the liberty of restarting the first paragraph discussion from the top: the new discussion can be found at Talk:Abortion/First paragraph redux. I know you and others have done a lot of work to get a legitimate, "good faith" discussion going, but I think it's fair to say that one of the participants may not have been acting in good faith, and their efforts may have tainted the process enough to make further progress difficult. Justin Eiler 03:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Dead Unborn Puppies

Stop the cruelty: [1]--2006-03-28 16:57:25 Pro-Lick

Natural abortions Pro-lick, and from now on sign your comments. Your pro-abortion stance and irrelevant topics to insult pro-life people is appalling but if you must you should be held accountable. Chooserr 23:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It's very relevant. Someone had included a definition from a vet. I'm providing perspective, even if your POV of it is "appalling". I can't control your feelings.--Pro-Lick 00:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The point of the vet definition was simply to show the neutrality of the word death and its use in the wider scientific community in referring to the fetus. I agree with chooserr that your addition here is inappropriate - trolling is not highly regarded amongst the Wikipedia community.DonaNobisPacem 05:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What I was getting at is that you were poking fun at pro-life people by your comment "Stop the cruelty". If it wasn't a natural miscarriage it would be semi-appropriate, but I don't see how you can justify such an inaccurate heading. Chooserr 00:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

As some of you may know, Pro-Lick was blocked yesterday for violating 3RR. During the block, several new users sprang up, and started reverting to his version. A user check has established that Pro-Lick is AbortMe, Cry Me a Shill, and Vote Machine Malfunction, all of whom began to edit during his block. He is also the previously-blocked user Halliburton Shill. Pro-Lick's block has now been extended, and the new sockpuppets he created in the last 24 hours have been blocked indefinitely. AnnH ♫ 20:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I added User:Undermined to the indef blocked socks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't endorse sockpuppets (nor do I know for a fact that sockpuppets were involved). However, I do oppose the notion that edits should be removed due to their origin as opposed to their content. While his methods may not have been consistent with Wikipedia standards, the content was on the whole an improvement. Alienus 21:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, some of the edits were an improvement. Many more were not. The problem is not the source of the edits; the problem is that Pro-Lick added large sweeping edits, both "good" and "bad", "sourced" and "unsourced", in single edits without gaining any kind of support or consensus, violated 3RR, then used socks to evade the block. This is against WP policy. Violating 3RR then using socks to evade block is what he did, not making bad edits (in this context). If there are any particular edits which you feel should be reinstated, please bring them to the table. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with KC on this--Haliburton Shill/Pro-Lick was one reason I stepped away from the article. Bad-faith edit warring even with the best of intentions is more stress than I need ... and frankly, I can't state that his/her intentions were good with any degree of confidence. If it wasn't such a hassle, I would revert to the last edit before Haliburton Shill's "sock army" started the melee and evaluate any changes on the talk page. Even if every single edit done was a "good" edit, we have a situation where the end simply does not justify the means, (IMO, YMMV). Justin Eiler 21:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Justified or not, the means have come and gone, and we are left with the ends. We need to focus on making the content better, not how it got to where it is today.

For the record, I walked away from this article in disgust when I got sick of the endless (and still continuing!) debate over the very definition of "abortion". Perhaps war is better than stalemate. Alienus 22:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious, or did you just not read the whole edit? At the beginning, it's not too bad, but then he did things like changing "Suggested effects" to "Dubious effects" and then writing "All of the effects listed in this section have no proven links to abortion. They are reviewed here because they have become well known as a result of political and religious campaigns." in that section. That's NPOV? --Rory0 96 22:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

My two favourite NPOV edits are: "Death" in this context is equivalent to taking medicine to kill bacteria [2] and: If a fetus does feel pain, it does not experience pain in the same sense a human experiences it. [3] It would be interesting to know, not if Alienus thinks they're true, but if he thinks they're models of NPOV writing. AnnH ♫ 22:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now, let's not pounce on Alienus. He merely stated some of the edits were worth considering, and has not specified which. I'm surprised at you, Ann. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I apologize. AnnH ♫ 22:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, Alienus--regardless of how the article got here, it's here now. However, I do have a suggestion...or a "cunning plan," if you prefer. :D

On some of the articles there has been a process of reviewing the article paragraph by paragraph and getting community consensus on that paragraph as a whole before changing any of it. You can see an example in process on the Talk:Jesus page. Do we think that this would be a workable process for this page? (I notice User:Andrew_c has already started such a process, and I'll tip my hat to acknowledge his efforts to avoid looking like I'm trying to steal his work outright. :D ) Justin Eiler 22:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable plan. My concern is that we're currently stuck on the very first sentence, with little movement forward. At this rate, abortion will be obsolete by the time we finish. Alienus 03:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd submit the problem is not with the content; but with us pro-choicer's not learning to "lose" gracefully. (I'm using "lose" loosely here) - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

S-protection

Let me state and stress that the current semi-protected state is totally in response to Pro-Lick's continued flood of sock puppets and block evasion. It is not an issue of Vandalism, as the default S-protection tag stated. I do not consider the actions of either side in the current debate to be vandalism, and apologize for any implication of such that may have come from my use of the standard tag. I have edited the tag to be specific to the current situation. And if Pro-Lick will stop his sock parade, I'll gladly lift the protection. - TexasAndroid 15:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Despite Alienus' reasonable objection on TexasAndroid talk; this is not only prudent but full protection will likely be needed at some point. Semi-protection does not stop discussions and will not stop users with a minimal amount of contructive participation in Wikipedia. Something I think should be expected from those who wish to edit controversial articles. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Health Effects: 1972 is old data

Right now it appears that in the lead sentence of this section 1972 data is used to justify the claim that abortion is safer than childbirth. Is there any more recent research? There has to be.Good 23:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well if you read further down, there is a paragraph that compares mortality rates for 1999 in the US and UK rates in the early 90s. Also, the cited study was published in 1979. If you look at table 19 here, you can see that the mortality rates in the US have gone down since '72. But for more recent information there is this that says "The risk of death associated with childbirth is about 11 times as high as that associated with abortion" which is referencing another study here.--Andrew c 01:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The article should not reference 1972 data as a source for this sentence, regardless of when the study was published.Good 05:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I exactly understand your reasoning, but go right ahead and update the source if that's what you want. I agree that more current sources will only improve the article.--Andrew c 06:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Finnish study: induced abortion mortality rate higher than natural birth

More info to consider adding to the article. The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology study (Gissler M et al., Pregnancy-associated mortality after birth, spontaneous abortion, or induced abortion in Finland, 1987–2000, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2004, 190(2):422–427.) cited by the pro-abortion AGI has some interesting information in it about pregnacy and abortion mortality rates. A pro-life organization has also cited the study, noting that the researchers found that the mortality rate associated with abortion is 2.95 times higher than that associated with pregnancies carried to term. An abstract of the Finnish study - largely ignored by the pro-abortion media and medical community- is here at the online NCBI/NLM/NIH database. From the abstract: population-based, retrospective cohort study from Finland for a 14-year period, 1987 to 2000, database included all deaths of women aged 15 to 49 years in Finland.

36.7 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies - all pregnancies
28.2 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies - birth
51.9 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies - spontaneous abortion
83.1 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies - induced abortion

Good 08:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Were these deaths the direct consequence of abortion-related medical complications? No. The study's authors mined the Finnish database and compared data on women who had undergone abortion, birth, or miscarriage within a year of dying for other reasons — evidence of correlation, if anything, but certainly not causation. It would thus be highly inappropriate to refer to this as the "abortion mortality rate." -Severa (Kyd) ?? | !!! 09:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You can cateogrize it however you like. But it is evidence that bringing pregnancy to term is associated with a higher degree of health and lower incidence of death than having an induced abortion. If this article is going to include information about the risk of death associated with abortion and childbirth, then this related information is worthy of mention, as well. Good 10:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The risk of death would only be applicable if the deaths counted were directly caused by induced abortion. -Severa (Kyd) ?? | !!! 10:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

NY Times: 7 deaths from "safe" abortion pills

Should this article include this recent development?

But the number of women who have died in the United States after taking Mifeprex has now reached six, according to reports received by the Food and Drug Administration; another has died in Canada..."The complications associated with RU-486 far exceed the complications of surgical abortion," said Dr. Damon Stutes, a provider in Reno, Nev., who refuses to offer pill-based abortions. Dr. Stutes, whose clinic has been bombed, said he was uneasy about agreeing with abortion opponents on anything. "But the truth is the truth," he said.

Good 07:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

There is more information on this at the mifepristone article. 6 deaths out of the estimate 580,000 uses of the drug in the US is still around 1 in 100,000. The deaths have all been related to an off-label use of the drug that involves a vaginal insertion of misoprostol. The CDC's investigation into 4 deaths concluded "that there is no established causal link between the deaths and the drugs". So, why is safe in quotation marks? --Andrew c 13:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting in the health effects section. The tested deaths show the cause to be similar to that of food poisoning - impurities in the drug as opposed to the drug itself. Probably worth noting that there's more pain involved with the drug, but it's also still safer than birth. Just keep any additions in context and avoid turning it into your own private POV ad.--Pro-Lick 04:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

LA Times acknowledges abortion bias in the press

For editors to keep in mind. And perhaps for inclusion in this article: Abortion Bias Seeps Into News Here ae some quotes from this LA Times article:

A comprehensive Times study finds that the press often favors abortion rights in its coverage, even though journalists say they make every effort to be fair.

The news media consistently use language and images that frame the entire abortion debate in terms that implicitly favor abortion-rights advocates.

Abortion-rights advocates are often quoted more frequently and characterized more favorably than are abortion opponents.

Events and issues favorable to abortion opponents are sometimes ignored or given minimal attention by the media.

Many news organizations have given more prominent play to stories on rallies and electoral and legislative victories by abortion-rights advocates than to stories on rallies and electoral and legislative victories by abortion rights opponents.

Columns of commentary favoring abortion rights outnumber those opposing abortion by a margin of more than 2 to 1 on the op-ed pages of most of the nation's major daily newspapers.

Newspaper editorial writers and columnists alike, long sensitive to violations of First Amendment rights and other civil liberties in cases involving minority and anti-war protests, have largely ignored these questions when Operation Rescue and other abortion opponents have raised them.

Television is probably more vulnerable to charges of bias on abortion than are newspapers and magazines.

Good 09:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

world tag

Hi, I am just trying to understand what part of the page is deserving of the world tag. It seems to be very factual based to me. For one it has more references than any other wikipedia page I have seen, which would suggest that it either has been neutralised or it is has both points of view in it. To me it seems to be neutralised from reading it. Ansell 14:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem isn't that the article is POV or lacking sources, the problem is that it is mostly dealing with issues of Abortion in the west. To fix this, we could add in more information about abortion in Africa, Asia, and South America. (The problem is that information on abortion issues in Asia and Africa are much harder to come by.) -Quasipalm 19:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

News you can use

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pro-Lick (talk • contribs) 16:28, 1 April 2006.

Not sure what this has to do with the wikipedia article, but I'm pretty sure the first one is a hoax -- i doubt such large deformities would allow a newborn to survive in that condition without medical intervention. -Quasipalm 19:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You will notice that the baby only lived for 30 minutes after birth. To me this has a large amount to do with possible reasons for abortion. Why have the risk of the mother giving birth to a baby that will only survive 30 minutes, guaranteed in this case. Ansell 22:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sort of an obvious photoshop creation. Take a look at the date ;). Jefffire 19:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, I considered that, but the site is a legit news site. Consider these birth defects before you start up the photoshop conspiracy network.--Pro-Lick 19:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The date of the article: Posted on: 2006-03-29 09:19:53 (Server Time)--Pro-Lick 20:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with that date? Ansell 22:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It's potentialy true but I still suspect it's a mock up. The photo looks unrealistic and there is a long history of respected news corporations pulling the odd joke on their viewers. In any case it doesn't really add much to the debate. Jefffire 20:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your POV and expert comments on Anencephaly. Be sure to check out the external link section.--Pro-Lick 20:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that this one particular case is a mock up based on my experience with photoshop creations. I'm not ruling out that it's real, just regestering my doubts. Jefffire 20:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what either has to do with the page - in the first article, it states the mother basically had triplets, but two grew inside the other - in the second, it is apparently anencephaly. What do these have to do with the abortion article? DonaNobisPacem 06:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Abortion Images/Links

Given the disturbing photos the wikipedia Anencephaly article links to, why on earth do we not link to any images of abortion? The most common medical procedure in the Western world, and we have no photos available of abortion at the various stages of gestation and various methods? What is the basis for keeping such informative links ooout of this article? Good 22:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

For 1 thing, those photos are not on Wiki, they're on an External site. I'm not objecting to what you're asking for. I certainly don't object to providing photos of dead and handicapped women and girls after being forced to give birth. A few c-section photos would be nice too.--Pro-Lick 00:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This was discussed extensively in Archive 16. There is a practical concern for the size of this article, and, trimming the link list is a one of the easiest ways to avoid unecessary bloat. I, personally, would argue that images of cases of anencephaly serve a fascination with curiosities — in the sense of a 19th-century sideshow — moreso than medical education, but I don't edit that article, and I'm not familiar with the practices of its resident editors. Shock images, in the context of the politically-charged Abortion article, are more argumentative than informative. There's nothing that could be depicted pictorially which isn't already described far more accurately in the written text. -Severa ?? | !!! 10:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You people should try being honest for a change. It is obvious that those who are against pictures in this article are simply against them because they support abortion and it hurts their cause. This is simply biased and dishonest, and all it does is reduce the credibility of the encyclopedia. I have heard that other articles, such as those related to genitalia, are "informative" enough to provide multiple photos (rather than drawings)...but this one's text is supposedly so good that pictures of protestors, ancient engravings, and Japanese shrines are more useful than pictures or even drawings of a fetus or the procedure. Over a million abortions a year..but it's a subject best described with text instead of shown. What a laugh. At least I have learned to protect my credibility and not trust this encyclopedia --13:22 April 8, 2006

POV edit-warring

There is some POV edit-warring going on in two related articles: Pro-life and Pro-choice. Editors here might be interested in taking a look. Alienus 00:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Addition

It is written in the article, "HELP KEEP THIS ARTICLE SHORT AND SIMPLE: DO NOT ADD MORE LINKS TO "BIASED" SECTION. ADD THEM TO WHICHEVER SUB-ARTICLE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE INSTEAD. ALSO, PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT SITES CONTAINING SHOCK MATERIAL SHALL, IN NO CASE, BE ACCEPTED. THANKS!"

I should thus note now that I added a link to the "biased links" section. The link I added was in regards to the Libertarian view on abortion. I added it there as it didn't seem to fit directly into anything else, however if someone would like to move that link and integrate its content into the article in some manner, be my guest.

Allixpeeke 10:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a top-tier article, which attempts to summarize the whole of the abortion issue, and thus article size is a concern. The section, in the past, snowballed to ungainly length, as many editors felt certain links relevant enough to add. It'd be a lot better to add your external link to a sub-article which is targeted more specifically to its subject, like Libertarian perspectives on abortion, Abortion debate, or Pro-life instead. -Severa ?? | !!! 12:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Allixpeeke 04:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

New first paragraph

In case you have missed the discussion on the susbpage, we have worked on a new version of the first paragraph that has received a lot of positive buzz. I would appreciate all comments and criticism, but please join us on the subpage. Below is the current proposed first paragraph:

An abortion is medically defined as the termination of a pregnancy that results in an embryo or nonviable fetus being expelled or removed from the uterus. This can occur spontaneously, in the form of a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means. In common parlance, the term abortion usually refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus, even viable ones, such as the controversial but rare intact dilation and extraction procedure. All mammalian pregnancies can be aborted; however, human abortion receives the most focus in biology and the mass media.

--Andrew c 00:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC) (on behalf of the editors on the subpage)

I don't think the term nonviable will come across in its academic meaning. Could abortion not the process of termination and removal, rather than it being the termination which must necessarily be followed by removal somehow. Just my thoughts on it. Ansell 05:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That is why it is linked, and reverted your removal of "or from" to the lead; it is there to specifically cover spontaneous abortion. Termination in the live lead is referring to gestation, this version is referring to pregnancy. Unsure of the problem; could you please expand and clarify. Are you saying a terminated pregnancy needs to be removed? I'm pretty sure that innaccurate as many miscarriages terminate and then self remove (expel) themselves naturally. We are making a dinstinction between natural and artificial removal and expell. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The word "nonviable" is simply not accurate. Abortions are done regardless of viability, as anyone familiar with partial-birth abortion (sometimes called IDX) or hysterotomy abortion knows. I just don't know why the article would lead off with a statement that is inaccurate and misleading. Abortions can be early or late term, but they are all abortions. ____G_o_o_d____ 11:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Not by itself, but it isn't. Which is why there is also "embryo" as in, "embryo or nonviable" KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

True, but Good may have a point with late term abortions; which may include viable fetuses; then again we are defining abortion, not late term abortion on this article. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That is my point, Roy. If we are defining abortion, then it should be the broad definition. And the broad definition should not exclude late term abortions, as the inclusion of the word "nonviable" would do. ____G_o_o_d____ 19:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I commented on the subpage.--Andrew c 20:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Roy, the way I read it, the definition still covers late-term abortions. What am I missing? Alienus 19:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing if I'm correct. Good mentioned in the subpage the first "broad" definition excludes late-term abortions. I clarified just now, the first definition is medical, not broad; which is what the common parlance is for. After a likely tweak of Intact dilation and extraction to Late-term abortion I can't see any problem. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Although "Early induction of labor" is one of the procedures listed under Late-term abortion. Hmmmm... maybe if I just ignore it, it will go away. I miss Tznkai. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I created the list of procedures on the LTA page, and Lyrl added the bit about "early labor". I have never heard of that, and am not sure of the source for that addition. Maybe Lyrl could help clarify.--Andrew c 22:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Lick proposed removing "the term" from the proposal. It seems reasonable to me. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Including non-viability as a prerequisite for every abortion is clearly archaic. Perhaps the thought used to be that no doctor would kill a viable fetus. With the advent of partial-birth abortion and hysterotomy abortion, that is no longer the case. Most late term abortions are performed on healthy fetuses after 19 or 20 weeks, the point at which viability is now placed. And thousands of late term abortions are done each year in the US (they are not rare, they are atypical; annually in the USA there are 500 times more late term abortions of viable fetuses than lawful executions). These two medical definitions do not included viability:

MedicineNet.com medical dictionary: In medicine, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. It is the loss of a pregnancy and does not refer to why that pregnancy was lost.
Websters medical dictionary: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus

____G_o_o_d____ 06:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Life is full of compromises and rarely can we make everyone happy. If the right choice for the intro paragraph doesn't happen to please you, Evil, then this is a foreseeable consequence that I'm prepared to live with.

Thanks for posting that first definition, though, as it shows how a definition can be accurate without mentioning "death". Alienus 06:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It's getting confusing trying to decide whether to post here or on the subpage. The proposed opening leaves "death" out of the definition, but includes it in the first paragraph. Obviously, I'd prefer it in the definition, as the death of the fetus is the whole purpose of the abortion — if it doesn't die, then either there was a birth or there was a failed abortion. Nevertheless, I can live with this opening as a compromise.

Regarding the words "viable" and "non-viable", it is certain that the word "abortion", in common usage, refers to any time up to birth, even if it is not medically defined that way. Language is not a static thing that can be put in a box and left unchanged. "Presently" used to mean "immediately". Later it came to mean "in a little while". Now many people use it to mean "currently". If enough people use a word in a certain way, then the dictionaries update their definitions. So if "abortion" is generally used to refer to the process that takes place early or late in the pregnancy, we don't want to give the impression that every fetus deliberately killed by a doctor would have been incapable of surviving anyway. Nevertheless, I can live with the suggested opening, which says "medically defined", and then goes on to say that "in common parlance" the term is for viable ones also.

I think it's important that the article shouldn't try to downplay (by reducing it to a tiny sentence somewhere in the middle) the fact that the fetus dies, or that procedures commonly called abortions are also carried out on fetuses that would have been able to survive. AnnH ♫ 09:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with the mixing of singular and plural in "an embryo or fetus, even viable ones", and would change it to "an embryo or fetus, even when viable". AnnH ♫ 09:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I will add that if it didn't say "medically defined", I would object strenuously to the use of the word "nonviable", as it would be highly misleading. Even with the "medically defined", it's still less clear than I'd like, as the first sentence is the one that people notice most. But, as I said, I can live with it. AnnH ♫ 10:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I have responded to you on the subpage. Thanks for your imput.--Andrew c 20:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Effects Review

As you may be aware, the Health effects section has been marked as "MAJOR REORG NEEDED. Entire section is argumentative, and biased". This was done before I became involved in the article, but I do find the description still accurate, though the section may be better than it once was.

Suggested effects is a subsection of Health effects. To start the review, I decided to take a peer approach and see how another encyclopedia covered the effects listed under "suggested effects".

I reviewed the MSN Encarta encyclopedia and found the following:

Breast cancer - Abortion-breast cancer does not have its own article, nor is breast cancer mentioned in Encarta's abortion article or abortion mentioned in the breast cancer article.
Fetal pain - Any type of pain related to the fetus does not have its own article, nor is it mentioned in Encarta's abortion or pregnancy articles. The pains of being pregnant are mentioned.
Mental health - Post-abortion syndrome does not have its own article, nor is it mentioned in Encarta's abortion article. Nothing about depression or other mental disorders or syndromes is mentioned.

To help us better organize and provide the proper weight to the suggested effects subsection, additional reviews and comparisons are welcome.--Pro-Lick 17:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a Long Tail; this is a decided advantage over traditional sluggish sources, like Encarta that need to be conservative with their topics and resources, and its a key part of what makes Wikipedia so popular. You bring up our coverage of secondary topics as though it is a bad thing; I assure you its a significant positive. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The goal of this has nothing to do with clipping Wiki's tail, nor to reduce coverage of secondary topics or to interfere with Wiki's popularity. If anything, I'd like there to be more coverage. The goal is to improve a section noted as "argumentative, and biased". In particular, to review and compare how the suggested effects that are emphasized and argued for (instead of simply described and linked to) are handled by other sources.--Pro-Lick 16:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Acquiring the correct tone and weight is difficult for anyone; be it Wikipedia or outside sources with little transparency. But it is a laudable goal; if said sections are indeed as you describe. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that we consult the rules on undue weight, as they're fairly clear about this. The absence of coverage in a paper encyclopedia is not reason enough for us to omit coverage, but it may give us a hint about how much coverage a topic deserves, if any. Alienus 17:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Not really. I refer you to exploding animal. I would consider any coverage of said secondary topics certainly relevant; but the lack of coverage means precisely that; a lack of coverage. Inferring anything else is shooting from the hip, so to speak. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: If a traditional encyclopedia covers something, this is a fairly strong hint that we ought to as well, but if it doesn't, then we have to rely on our own judgement. Alienus 20:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

For convenience, the links below are to some previous reviews I did regarding how breast cancer risks are handled in medical publications:

two current medical books on gynecology and obstetrics
MedicineNet's list of risk factors
American Cancer Society's 2005 review of studies

To summarize, 3 of the 4 do not mention abortion as a breast cancer risk, and the 4th considers it a false alarm.--Pro-Lick 20:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The "major reorg" note predates any of the "Suggested effects" sub-sections (random edit, dated August 10, 2005). If anything, it is the poor, neglected "Health effects" lead which needs review (or, more specifically, sources and a rewrite -- it's currently a mish-mash of disparate additions). -Severa ?? | !!! 22:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

With the exception of fetal pain, the content of the suggested effects subsection are there. It just isn't a subsection yet.--Pro-Lick 23:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thus, "Suggested effects" was born of a major reorg. -Severa ?? | !!!

The subsection was, possibly prematurely, not most of the content. That doesn't resolve "argumentative, and biased".--Pro-Lick 23:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Mental health review addition: two current medical books on gynecology and obstetrics do not mention any mental health issues related to abortion. MedicineNet does not list post abortion syndrome or any abortion related mental illnesses.--Pro-Lick 23:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)