Talk:Abortion/First paragraph/Archive 5

Ann proposal tweaking

An abortion is the expulsion or removal of an embryo or fetus from a woman's womb, resulting in or caused by its death. This can occur spontaneously, in which case it is referred to as a "spontaneous abortion" (or miscarriage), or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means. Although the word, The strict medical definition refers only to non-viable fetuses or embryos, in common parlance but "abortion" commonly refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus, even a viable one, such as in controversial late-term abortion procedures.

Various methods have been used to induce abortions throughout the centuries. In the 20th century, the morality of induced abortion became the subject of intense political debate in many parts of the world. Opponents consider the embryo or fetus to be fully human and therefore consider induced abortion to be murder, whereas proponents of legal induced abortion consider access to safe abortion to be a basic human right for women.

I've added expulsion, in response to Killa's objection over murder; while it is certainly strong language... a basic human right is also strongly worded and placed last. Making the paragraph ultimately sympathetic to abortion, yet making it crystal clear what the opposing views are. As to wordiness... dunno how to fix that, but I think Ann's proposal does the trick and flows well. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 14:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Tried fixing wordiness. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a significant improvement over what we've got now. I think it still has a pro-life slant, but no more so than the current intro, and it's better phrased, and provides more and clearer information. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually - a minor point - the opening sentence is slightly ambiguous with "its death" - the death of the nearest singular noun, the womb? Y'know? -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, hmmmm... - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'd strike the entire last line, starting with "Opponents consider...". Completely unecessary to put Abortion debate in the intro to Abortion. The preceeding sentence states there is controversy; that is sufficient for the intro. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

That does have a certain appeal. New version below, removed "woman's womb" and put "female" instead; linked Abortion debate in debate link. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

New version

An abortion is the expulsion or removal from a female of an embryo or fetus, resulting in or caused by its death. This can occur spontaneously, in which case it is referred to as a "spontaneous abortion" (or miscarriage), or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means. Various methods have been used to induce abortions throughout the centuries.

The strict medical definition refers only to non-viable fetuses or embryos, but abortion commonly refers to any induced procedure that results in the death of an embryo or fetus, even a viable one, such as in controversial late-term abortion procedures. In the 20th century, the morality of induced abortion became the subject of intense mainstream debate in many parts of the world.

Question, what are "other means". Is that necessary? The only other mean I can think of is intentional physical trauma. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Unlinked political; doesn't add anything. Actually public should be added too; as that is what differentiates the debate now and the debates that happened in centuries past among politicians/philosophers. No... I got it, replace both with mainstream! Moved "Various" sentence up to the first paragraph; as its ackward in the bottom one. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved female up in the sentence to resolve grammar thing; perhaps ultimately female should just be deleted... as embryo and fetus are linked. I think it could be fair to assume a person knows what a fetus is. Perhaps removing it, and putting woman in the "commonly" sentence would be best? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Female sounds really strange. If anything, it should be uterus. I think you are slightly misrepresenting the medical definition. It isn't that the medical definition's main purpose is to ignore LTAs. It's that the medical definitions includes miscarriages but not stillbirths (and a case can be made that LTAs are technically not abortions(1), even if they are an induced abortion(2) procedure [considering two different definitions of the word abortion]). The common definition never includes miscarriages. I think it is pushing it to have 'death' in there twice. As it stands, there are 3 definitions of abortion. The 1st definitions stemming from the OR of WP editors trying to be "neutral". Then an explanation of the POV definitions [(1) and (2)], except, as I said, the medical definitions isn't exactly explained that well.

I think a solution might be to just give the common definition first, then comment on the medical definition and miscarriages. something like "Abortion commonly refers to any induced procedure that aims to terminate a pregnancy through chemical, medical, or other means. Abortions procedures are contrasted with live births in that abortions result in the death of a fetus/embryo. Medically speaking, the word abortion refers to any premature termination of a pregnancy before 20 weeks of gestation. This includes miscarriages which are technically called spontaneous abortions" etc, blah blah. I feel that these are the concepts that should be presented in the definition. The order and wording can be debated, but I think when we start to change the basic facts, or introduce different concepts, we start to loose sight of our sources.--Andrew c 22:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The wording of this seems a bit of a mess - does no-one else find the sentance about spontaneous abortions odd? ([Abortion] can occur spontaneously, in which case it is referred to as a "spontaneous abortion" (or miscarriage))

Slim introduced it as the correct medical term I believe, but in my experience and a search of pubmed returns 25,785 results for 'miscarriage', and 'spontaneous abortion' 13,491. This suggests a split in the medical community, and in colloquial usage I've only heard 'miscarriage' used. This might be different across the world, but the current explanation seems clunky.

Might not this suffice: [Abortion] can occur spontaneously, in which case it is referred to as a miscarriage,..

Which links to an article which in the first sentance introduces both terms?

Secondly the addition of the 'various methods' sentance to the end of the first paragraph seems to reiterate what is said immediately before it. I feel this was better off in the second paragraph.

Besidses those, I prefer this version to the current version and would support an upgrade (although so far the latest proposal by AndrewC is my favourite). Hopefully something can come from these pages! |→ Spaully°τ 00:25, 22 April 2006 (GMT)

Indeed "various" does reiterate what was said, which makes it the logical place to put it; I merged it in the next version. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Version 4.1

An abortion is the expulsion or removal of an embryo or fetus from a uterus, caused by or resulting in its death. Abortion can occur spontaneously (miscarriage), or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means which have been used historically. In the 20th century, the morality of induced abortion became the subject of intense mainstream debate in many parts of the world.

The word "abortion" is commonly used to mean any induced procedure that aims to terminate a pregnancy of any gestational age. Medically speaking, abortion is defined as any premature termination of a pregnancy before twenty weeks of gestation.

Changed the 2nd death to "terminates"; merged historical sentence, female > uterus. Put in Andrew c "Medically speaking, moved commonly first and moved "20th century" to be with "historical" mention. Better flow. Replaced second refers with "defined as". So how's this version? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm... didn't we want to avoid the word "pregnancy"; as it is non-specific and may not be terminated with selected reduction etc. Or is having "a" in front sufficient to clarify a singular pregnancy is being terminated. Damnit, I thought I almost had it. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not perfect in my eyes (and I have a feeling I am very hard to please on this topic, :P), but I think it works. I personally see no problem with the word "pregnancy" because selective reductions are not "common" and you state specifically that you are talking "commonly". Furthermore, 'temination of pregnancy' is used by a majority of the cited definitions. My only concern would be what Severa raised awhile back about giving undue weight to viable/LTA. Her suggestion was to just say along the lines of "Abortion commonly refers to any induced procedure that aims to terminate a pregnancy of any gestational age".--Andrew c 02:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty, and 20 should be twenty? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, in the first sentence it seems odd to split "removal of an embryo" with "from a uterus". I would rearrange the order of the sentence. And about 20, I will look through the cited sources and dig out the ones that specifically say 20. I was leaning towards "non-viable" but other editors took issue with that word. The definitions that reference 20 all would fall under non-viable, but the definitions that reference viability do not necessarily work if we say 20 (if that makes sense).--Andrew c 02:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm just saying whether 20 should be written numerically "20" or spelled out "twenty". Usually for small quantaties the latter is preferable stylistically. I acknowledge the split, I rearranged, but the reason I did it the other way was because GTB noticed "its" refers to the last thing mentioned; which would be "uterus" now. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and I hate to be a pain in the neck, but the more I read it now, the more it sounds that way to me. The most elegant solution I can think of is to repeat "embryo or fetus", which isn't elegant. As far as "twenty" versus "20", I can't see that it matters at all, and if someone changes it later, that's cool too. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, implemented lest of two evils in version below. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin version:

An abortion is the expulsion from a woman's uterus of the products of conception, a process caused by, or resulting in, the death of an embryo or fetus. This process can occur naturally, in which case it is called a sponanteous abortion or miscarriage, or it can be caused deliberately by trauma, or by chemical or surgical means, where it is called an induced abortion. The word "abortion" is commonly used to refer to induced abortion alone.

The ethics of induced abortion are the subject of intense political debate in many parts of the world. Those who oppose allowing women to seek abortions usually consider the embryo or fetus to be a fully human person from the moment of conception, and therefore regard induced abortion as morally equivalent to murder. Proponents of allowing induced abortion prioritize what they see as the right of women to control their own reproduction, and consequently regard access to safe, legal abortion as a basic human right.

Version 4.3

An abortion is the expulsion or removal of an embryo or fetus from a uterus, caused by or resulting in the death of the embryo or fetus. This can occur naturally with a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage), or be artificially induced through chemical, surgical, or other means which have been used historically. The ethics of induced abortion is the subject of intense debate in many parts of the world.

The word "abortion" is commonly used to mean any induced procedure that aims to terminate a pregnancy of any gestational age. Medically speaking, abortion is defined as any premature termination of a pregnancy before twenty weeks of gestation.

Looked at SlimVirgin's version and added "natural", "artificial", "ethics" to the definition. Removed "mainstream" that's debatable and infrequent mainstream subject. If we were to include a synopsis of the debate maybe it would look like this? Although I understand we don't want the lead to be overtaken by the debate, it seems approriate to its weight and notability. It also clarifies this is about women; as I've consciously have removed women from the 1st paragraph. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Version 4.3d

An abortion is the expulsion or removal of an embryo or fetus from a uterus, caused by or resulting in the death of the embryo or fetus. This can occur naturally with a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage), or be artificially induced through chemical, surgical, or other means which have been used historically. The word "abortion" is commonly used to mean any induced procedure that aims to terminate a pregnancy of any gestational age. Medically speaking, abortion is defined as any premature termination of a pregnancy before twenty weeks of gestation.

The ethics of induced abortion is the subject of intense debate in many parts of the world. Those who oppose allowing women to seek abortions usually consider the embryo or fetus to be a fully human person from the moment of conception, and therefore regard induced abortion as morally equivalent to murder. Proponents of allowing induced abortion prioritize what they see as the right of women to control their own reproduction, and consequently regard access to safe, legal abortion as a basic human right.

Version 4.3e (4.3d after copyedit of paragraph one)

An abortion is the expulsion or removal from the uterus of an embryo or fetus, caused by or resulting in its death. This can occur naturally (miscarriage), or be artificially induced through chemical, surgical, or other means (see History of abortion). In general, abortion refers to induced abortion at any gestational age. Medically speaking, the word refers to induced abortion up to gestational week twenty.

The ethics of induced abortion is the subject of intense debate in many parts of the world. Those who oppose allowing women to seek abortions usually consider the embryo or fetus to be a fully human person from the moment of conception, and therefore regard induced abortion as morally equivalent to murder. Proponents of allowing induced abortion prioritize what they see as the right of women to control their own reproduction, and consequently regard access to safe, legal abortion as a basic human right.

(Please note that I do not endorse this version; I'm only posting this as a (hopefully) faithful rendition of the meaning of 4.3d in (hopefully) more precise/encyclopedic terms. Please improve if/where you think I failed.) AvB ÷ talk 22:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I originally had uterus that way, and I do consider it to be the least awkward way to express it; the problem is it implies "the uterus" belongs to the embryo of fetus, so that forces it further down the sentence. "gestational week twenty" is strange, as I rarely see the word "gestational" and all the medical texts I've read specify the timeframe then follow it up with "gestation". And if I understood Andrew c correctly, the medical definition of "abortion" encompasses spontaneous abortion too; not just induced abortion. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, good points as usual. Regarding the uterus, I too considered both versions and personally find your original version more encyclopedic in that it does not mention embryo/fetus twice. Leaving it in for now, feel free to change. Gestational week twenty - agree, changing it back. One question - we now have "before week twenty" - shouldn't that be up to/including (i.e. before week 21)? Re medical def: right again, but version 4.3d has other (worse I think) problems in the sentences The word "abortion" is commonly used (...) twenty weeks of gestation in that a "perfect" copyedit would require the repetition of the full defs in these sentences, including the word death in the final sentence. The former is awkward, the latter awkward and loaded so to be avoided. My solution was mainly the better of two evils in the simple context of a copyedit - i.e. without adding, changing or removing the meaning/intent of 4.3d. Having said that, the change you're suggesting is quite simple so I've made it in version 4.3f ("all abortions" instead of "abortion"). AvB ÷ talk 13:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin proposal, version 4.3f, incorporating copyedit comments

An abortion is the expulsion or removal from the uterus of an embryo or fetus, caused by or resulting in its death. This can occur naturally (miscarriage), or be artificially induced through chemical, surgical, or other means (see History of abortion). Generally "abortion" refers to induced abortion at any gestational age. Medically speaking, abortion is defined as any termination before twenty weeks of gestation.

The ethics of induced abortion is the subject of intense debate in many parts of the world. Those who oppose allowing women to seek abortions usually consider the embryo or fetus to be a fully human person from the moment of conception, and therefore regard induced abortion as morally equivalent to murder. Proponents of allowing induced abortion prioritize what they see as the right of women to control their own reproduction, and consequently regard access to safe, legal abortion as a basic human right.

AvB ÷ talk 13:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Did the following tweaks to make it less stilted; removed second "refer":

• "In general, abortion" > "Generally the word "abortion"" or perhaps > "Generally "abortion""
• "Medically speaking, the word refers" > "Medically speaking, abortion is defined as any termination"

And should it be "the uterus" or "a uterus"? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a slight preference for "the" in encyclopedic definitions, mainly because it indicates a single/specific item whereas "a" is more ambiguous - it can e.g. also mean one out of several/many. Hence "the expulsion," "the uterus," but "an embryo" (the latter e.g. when a hormonally induced multiple pregnancy is "reduced"). AvB ÷ talk 11:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do we seem to be sticking to 'before twenty weeks'? I have yet to see compelling reasoning as to why that is better than 'viable', which is explained on the linked page, and is more correct and is supported by more medical definitions. Using '20 weeks' is just a way of (roughly) quantifying the concept of viability, so does not solve any issues with using such a definition. I would suggest for the last two sentances:

Generally "abortion" refers to induced abortion at any gestational age; however, medically speaking abortion is defined as any termination before the fetus is viable.

You could also include Andrew C's references about this medical definition. |→ Spaully°τ 10:33, 24 April 2006 (GMT)

i prefer version 4.1. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

In regards to viable: Homestarmy and a few others objected to the word "viable" (even though it was used by a number of our cited sources). If you scroll up the page a bit, you can see that discussion where we compromised on an actual gestational age (also supported by some of our cited sources). I personally prefer viable, but I was willing to compromise in order to attempt to save my proposal. Being a cynic, I think that we should just use my proposal because the people who voted reject, but didn't come and try to reach consensus or offer a counter proposal, shouldn't have a say in the matter. If you are going to vote against something without trying to make it better or offer an alternative, what does your vote do, besides impede progress? (and there were a few people who voted reject and did discuss here on talk. I feel that some minor changes discussed above could sway their vote to approval, at least until something better comes along). My problem with all these 4.x proposals is that not many people are helping out with this process. Hardly anyone who voted reject is here. So we may feel like we have another proposal that everyone here can agree upon, but for all we know, some editors who do not care about helping out on the talk subpage could come along and vote reject again. (sorry for the rant)--Andrew c 14:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I like this paragraph :/. Homestarmy 17:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Before twenty weeks is more accurate as viability could be disputed. Although I agree viability is the point of the medical definition and should be there. But that is a matter that can be dealt with seperately on Talk:Abortion in general for the entire article; as it is a significant point by itself. I want one of these versions to be adopted sooner, rather than later. I agree with your punctuation tweak as it flows better, and I had considered doing it myself back in 4.1 days. Done it in 4.4. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Version 4.4

An abortion is the expulsion or removal from the uterus of an embryo or fetus, caused by or resulting in its death. This can occur spontaneously as a miscarriage, or be artificially induced through chemical, surgical, or other means (see History of abortion). Generally "abortion" refers to induced abortion at any gestational age; however, medically speaking abortion is defined as any termination before twenty weeks of gestation.

The ethics of induced abortion is the subject of intense debate in many parts of the world. Those who oppose allowing women to seek abortions usually consider the embryo or fetus to be a fully human person from the moment of conception, and therefore regard induced abortion as morally equivalent to murder. Proponents of allowing induced abortion prioritize what they see as the right of women to control their own reproduction, and consequently regard access to safe, legal abortion as a basic human right.

Should:

right of women to control their own reproduction

be changed to:

right of an individual to control their own body

Isn't that closer to the core issue? Or does that get too messy as one can contend the embryo is an individual? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Roy, I think the first more to the point. "control their body", while used by pro-choicers, is a bit to ambigious in my book.

Another question, regarding this and other version which say "medically speaking abortion is defined as any termination before twenty weeks of gestation" - where do we get this? And even if there are references for that, it is certainly not accurate, is it? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Where did all the parens come from? And when did we get from 4.1, with no abortion debate in the intro, to putting abortion debate in the intro? Unhappy puppy here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

If there is consensus to remove it; then everything past "world." is removed and the debate sentence is merged with the 1st paragraph, and its done. But such a significant step should be agreed upon. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The current consensus version does not have the debate in the intro; the burden rests upon those wishing to add that verbiage to achieve consensus for the change. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I suppose so. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Fully agree with KillerChihuahua. Also, the part after "world." has many problems (I've listed a couple of them, and a possible solution, here) so I won't support it anywhere in the article, least of all in the intro. I would support something like it if the problems had been solved. Nevertheless, I think it would be best to wrap up paragraph 1 and try to get it past previous poll participants before taking on paragraph 2. I also share KillerChihuahua's preference for 4.1 (with minor tweaks). AvB ÷ talk 00:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That's coo, but please don't drag me back to 4.1; I'm getting this sucker into summary shape... I don't want to go back. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Replying to Str1977, the 20-week definition is just that - a definition - so it isn't a question of its accuracy so much as a question of how accepted that definition is. According to the same medical sources we've been throwing around for weeks, yes, that's the accepted definition among many medical professionals. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Str1977: Please take a look at our cited sources (somewhere in archive 18) and the footnote in my proposal here. Just because you do not feel that a definition meets your personal standard of what is "accurate" is not a valid excuse to ignore our sources. To be NPOV, we need to simply report our sources, not judge our sources. Medically speaking, a miscarriage is a type of 'abortion', but no one, in common parlance, uses abortion in the manner. Similarly, 'abortion' is technically defined as a termination of pregnancy before the fetus is viable. Keep in mind that there is a difference between what we commonly call the "induced abortion procedure in humans" and what medical dictionaries generally define as "abortion". Two different meanings, two different contexts, two different POVs (hence my two definition proposal weeks ago). Additionally, "late-term abortion" is not a medical term. Search through the literature at pubmed, and you will be pressed to find 'abortion' in reference to third trimester procedures, (though it is there occassionally because of the common use of the word). Finally, the number of abortions that occur at a gestational age when the fetus is viable is around .08% (around 1,000 a year). We need to avoid giving this topic undue weight in the opening paragraph. Hope this helps to clear things up.--Andrew c 20:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Should "as any termination" > "as a termination"? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

naturally > spontaneously, as not all miscarriages are "natural". - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Version 5.0

An abortion is the expulsion or removal from the uterus of an embryo or fetus, caused by or resulting in its death. This can occur spontaneously as a miscarriage, or be artificially induced through chemical, surgical or other means. Generally, "abortion" refers to induced abortion at any gestational age; medically, it is defined as a termination before twenty weeks of gestation.

There have been various methods of inducing an abortion throughout the centuries. In the 20th century, the ethical, moral and legal aspects of abortion became the subject of intense debate in many areas of the world.

Adopting AvB's 2nd paragraph suggestion, but removed "political"; also changed "any termination" to "a termination" in 1st paragraph. I would like either "ethical" or "moral" to be removed as they are redundant and slows the flow. I feel "In the 20th century" should be removed as well; as it is possibly presumptious to consider modern debates in the media to have marked the beginning of "intense" debate on this subject. (I would still feel that way if "political" was still there, as I can visualize political giants debating this issue prior to the dark ages, let alone the 20th century.) - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Better than the current version. What'll it take to get it into the article? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thumbs up from several admins and no significant objections. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Personally, I would tweak the punctuation and get rid of "however," as in "Generally, "abortion" refers to induced abortion at any gestational age; medically, it is defined as a termination before twenty weeks of gestation." But that's a minor point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I like the emphasis however provides, but I do have a preference for getting shorter... implemented. Any adviced on my proposed tweaks? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with either moral or ethical, but not both, and I agree with getting rid of 20th century. My preference for flow would be (areas to parts, also for flow): "The moral and legal aspects of abortion are the subject of intense debate in many parts of the world." Just suggestions. I support it anyway. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Very good! I'd probably make a few rabid Wikifications, but, otherwise, I see no issue with why it shouldn't be posted as is almost immediately.

If I remember correctly, the "political" preface was introduced to put the "in the 20th century" bit into context. The majority of the coverage of the debate in this article pertains to debate from the 20th century onward and the majority of debate in this time frame was political (well, at least, it's certainly a lot briefer than the more accurate, "intense political, social, medicial, economic, religious, spiritual, and psychological debate"). If you get rid of one, you might as well get rid off both, because the two are something of a matched pair.

-Severa (!!!) 07:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I prefer this to the current version, and besides the use of 'before 20 weeks' (which I'll raise on the main talk page as was suggested) just some very minor comments. Regarding this sentence:

Generally, "abortion" refers to induced abortion at any gestational age; medically, it is defined as a termination before twenty weeks of gestation.

I suggest, to improve flow and increase understanding:

Generally, "abortion" is used to refer to induced abortion at any gestational age; however, medically it is defined as a termination before the twentieth week of gestation.

I realise Slim removed 'however, ' and I don't feel that strongly about it, but I do prefer the prose with it present; however, it is likely this is down to personal tastes and writing styles :) |→ Spaully°τ 09:29, 29 April 2006 (GMT)

It reads well. I'm not sure about the "resulting in it's death" part as that assumes the POV that life begins a conception. I know that one has been a hot potato so I won't push it as I'm ambivalent about that issue - just flagging it as a potential problem. Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 12:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty good. Homestarmy 14:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Same here. In response to GTB and JzG below (summary: a consensus-based wiki remains a work in progress) I would recommend to freeze and try to roll out this version (if you'll pardon the IT lingo). We've looked at this from every conceivable angle - if most of us agree it's progress, I say let's just do it and take it from there. AvB ÷ talk 19:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Freeze and roll - check! -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

In the UK it is normally not known as abortion but as a termination. Medically it is invariably referred to as such. Does the US medical profession use the word abortion as a technical term? I'd be quite surprised if they did. Also it should IMO be removal or expulsion, not the other way round (it reads better). Why don't we use the formal definition from an accepted medical text? At least some texts define abortion as artificial termination of a pregnancy before the fetus is viable; that is less loaded than talking about "the death of the fetus". At least some terminations are precisely because the fetus stands little or no chance of independent viability. Of course, there is the fundamental problem that abortion is mainly a political, not a medical debate. Just zis Guy you know? 16:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this article is rather US-centric. As such it can't leave out the POV of a large minority who believe termination is murder from day one (conception). The paragraph one discussion is an attempt to create a introduction that will be acceptable to all parties. To be frank, I am moving towards the opinion that it will prove impossible to create a common text and that the article needs to describe the main POVs separately. AvB ÷ talk 19:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I support this version, and I thank those who have worked so hard in trying to gain consensus. I agree with Slim about changing areas to parts, and I also like the style better without "however". I would have "termination of pregnancy" rather than just "termination", as I feel that it's clearer with the object. AnnH ♫ 20:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Slim and Roy's tweaks. I support Ann's "termination of pregnancy" clarification. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Spinoff discussion?

For precisely that reason - that the debate is political - I think it would make sense to tackle the controvery in a much more head-on fashion than we've been discussing. The two sides of the debate don't even agree on the definition, and yet we state the definition before we admit there's a debate, thus supporting one side's definition. I don't have an exact set of words that does what I'm thinking of, and I'm not trying to stymie progress on this V5.0, but I really think the best solution is to confront the controversy more directly. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

GTB: I agree. Perhaps we could start from something like Abortion is a vernacular term for termination of a pregnancy. It is usually understood as meaning a medical intervention to remove an embryo or fetus, generally before the fetus becomes viable, although it may be used to describe certain miscarriages (spontaneous abortion), and in some cases it may be conducted in the third trimester of pregnancy by which point the fetus may be viable, known as late term abortion. Just zis Guy you know? 18:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking more head-on. Let's see....

An abortion is a type of termination of a pregnancy. The definition of abortion is not universally agreed upon. From a medical perspective it is variously defined as XXXXX, YYYYY, or ZZZZZ.</ref, etc.> From a legal or moral perspective, some define an abortion as any procedure resulting in the death of an embryo or fetus.</ref> Others dispute the validity of this definition.</ref>

That's more of a template for a suggestion than an actual suggestion, and I don't mean by introducing it to take away from the idea that 5.0 should go live if it nobody explains why it isn't better than the status quo. Still, with those blanks filled in appropriately, how does the presentation look? Does the direct acknowledgement of disagreement help? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it actually does. But note that this may well lead the "average" reader to expect an article that separately describes the various POVs, e.g. giving worldwide statistics of these views. Creating an article lead along these lines is not, perhaps, a light step to take, letting the genie out of the bottle so to speak. But I'm by now more than halfway convinced it's the way to go, also in connection with a developing general appreciation of the scale related watershed period I think Wikipedia is going through these days. AvB ÷ talk 19:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Version 5.1

An abortion is the removal or expulsion from the uterus of an embryo or fetus, resulting in or caused by its death. This can occur spontaneously as a miscarriage, or be artificially induced through chemical, surgical or other means. Generally, "abortion" refers to induced abortion at any gestational age; medically, it is defined as a termination before twenty weeks of pregnancy.

There have been various methods of inducing an abortion throughout history. The moral and legal aspects of abortion are the subject of intense debate in many parts of the world.

Implemented my tweaks, JzG's "removal or expulsion" (which forced me to switch "resulting in or caused by") and SlimVirgin's suggestions. Then Ann's and Spaully's suggestions complimented each other along with Killa's support; so "pregnancy" is a must have that got lost in the shuffle... and removes repetition to boot! Unless of course its "unmedical", then we can put back gestation.

I was bold and changed the wording and linking of the history of abortion sentence "throughout the centuries" > "throughout history"; as it implied abortion was only centuries old... and as ever we prefer shorter. :"D

This will be the version I'll roll out Sunday or Monday if there are no objections. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Linked legal to Abortion law. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm conflicted if it should be "a termination" or "any termination". I think any is a better fit but don't like two any's in a row. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I still have a problem with the death part. Most terminations are conducted before the foetus is viable; while some may consider that the word death is appropriate in this context, I would be hesitant to suggest that this is a majority view in the world let alone a consensus view. As an aside, I was informed with great solemnity by a fundamentalist that the contraceptive pill is equivalent to a murder a month. Just zis Guy you know? 09:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur for the most part, especially with the viability part... but only in respect to miscarriages; since the fetus wasn't meant to develop to begin with. So saying it "dies" is innaccurate as its a "false start" so to speak, however it is in keeping with how abortion is used commonly and acknowledges the seriousness of this issue in non-technical summary style wording. Even though the wording may not be the majority view wording; that is dictated by political correctness and polarization around abortion and not an accurate reflection of this issue. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this as much of an improvement on the current version. It does fix some minor wording issues, but it introduces some others. It does nothing to address the "death" issue raised by many (and still concerning to a few new editors as well, as seen by a number of comments above). It removed the awkward mammal sentence with an awkward sentence about the 'medical' definition. I do not really consider this a new proposal, just a few minor changes to what we already have. All that said, I'd support making these changes, but feel it does little to solve the conflicts that brought about this subpage months ago. Furthermore, I still feel the medical definition is being explained poorly (as my first comment stated a couple of screens up). I feel that you cannot just strip out miscarriages from the medical definition, because that seems to suggest that the only defining aspect of the medical definition is the viabilitly clause. --Andrew c 13:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I want the medical explaination expanded a bit too. Okay, can you really convince anyone that "viability" is the majority definition in the medical community. I know you have many sources; but who is the authority on these bioethical matters? A university? A doctor? A medical association? I suppose its all of them combined. And how do pro-life doctors define it? (PS: I added miscarriage to medical definition)

Perhaps we could add "before twenty weeks of pregnancy, or what is usually considered non-viable." How's that for an idea? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, should we link moral to Ethical aspects of abortion instead of morality? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Just as a matter of interest, what would be wrong with starting along the lines of: Abortion is a lay term for the medical termination of a pregnancy. The fact that the pregnancy is terminated says everythign we need to know about the fate of the foetus. In the UK I am pretty sure there are recorded instances of foetuses delivered alive following terminations in the third trimester (around 24 weeks) demonstrating independent viability and being saved. Just zis Guy you know? 09:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Some editors really dislike the word "termination" because they feel it is a euphemism. I happen to disagree with them, but the argument has still been made. Also, in the U.S., there are a very small number of abortion procedures after viablity that still result in the death of the fetus. Either something is given to the fetus to cause death before the procedure, or the actual procedure kills the fetus by 'ripping it apart', or 'sucking its brains out'. Therefore, because of this very small minority of abortion procedures (that technically aren't "abortions"), many editors have expressed that they feel the main goal and purpose of an abortion procedure is to get a dead fetus (as opposed to simply terminating a pregnancy. They claim that a livebirth also, technically speaking, terminates a pregnancy, despite the medical literature using terminate with another connotation that is akin to abort). Also, the third trimester starts at the 28th week.--Andrew c 14:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's no more a euphemism than carcinoma, deceased, fracture or any other medical term. Termination of pregnancy is precisely technically accurate. The death thing is also bugging me; it seems that we are being asked to state that abortions result in death because one particular controversial procedure, used in a very small minority of terminations, specifically requires the foetus to be rendered lifeless. That seems to me to be undue weight. Just zis Guy you know? 14:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I agree 100% with you. I'm just trying to update you on the other side's position (that can be found in the archives pages). Right now, it seems that there are none of the very strong pro-lifer editors helping this 'consensus' process. So we aren't really getting the criticisms we were in the past.--Andrew c 14:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well the latest proposels seem good, so I dunno how much criticism there can be :/. Homestarmy 14:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Termination is a great word and does follow the technical verbiage already adopted in the first sentence. But, we adopted "embryo/fetus" because they were more accurate and straight forward words. In the case of death; it is more straight forward and simple (but of course with emotional/political baggage), so I agree termination is preferable especially with miscarriages for accuracy. (however consider this hypothetical, we become so advanced in the future; a miscarrying pregnancy can be removed, put in an artificial womb and saved... point being its viability can be merely a reflection of our ability to save it) There is however a nuance and tone that death provides that I consider appropriate. Others disagree, mostly I believe that is because they have grown use to their carefully selected verbiage on the issue.

While they are correct death is pro-life angled, "fetus" is pro-choice angled. Pro-lifer's have a point in that abortion isn't simply a neutral medical procedure. This is a matter of compromise; but moreover it is a fundamentally important balancing act of tone and mutual respect for points of view. I am implementing all the above changes to Version 5.2 and reverted 5.1 to its original wording; I'll ask some users if they are acceptable and will implement the new lead when I get satisfactory feedback. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Version 5.2 (currently live)

An abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in, or caused by, its death. This can occur spontaneously as a miscarriage, or be artificially induced through chemical, surgical or other means. Generally Commonly, "abortion" refers to an induced abortion procedure at any point in the pregnancy; medically, it is defined as a miscarriage or induced termination before twenty weeks gestation, which is usually considered nonviable.

There have been various methods of inducing an abortion throughout history. The moral and legal aspects of abortion are the subject of intense debate in many parts of the world.

Looks fair to me :/. Homestarmy 16:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

New version implemented a while back. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Good work on gaining consensus. It can be done! AnnH ♫ 09:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it was worth it... though one can never be sure till the next edit war occurs. :"D RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You have the patience of a saint RoyBoy. Is it worth adding a line to say that after around the 20 week stage it is termed a Late term abortion to allow readers looking for that definition to go straight there? Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 11:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Saint RoyBoy has a nice ring to it. Initially I thought it was worth it to mention LTA, mostly because I was curious about it as a subject and I assumed others would be too. However, Andrew c among others more familiar with it noted it is a very rare procedure(s)... and putting it in the lead would give it too much weight.

Oh, and I'm going to be bold and swap gestation and pregnancy around; as those terms are better suited in the other definition. I'm still thinking of removing "usually" as prior to 20 weeks is universally considered being not viable (at this time). - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Point taken Saint Roy the Patient (no disrespect to anyone intended!). Although you could argue that not to mention it at all will cause the article to read as if no abortions after this point take place. Also cross-linking related articles in a very clear way is always good. However I don't feel strongly enough about this to want to cause problems - just a thought that's all. Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 16:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, "usually" needs to go. If anything, the "20 week" part needs to go and be replaced with "non-viable". I still think we need to address the "death" issues that have existed for months, and have recently been brought up again by JzG. I don't like "Generally". I would prefer commonly or in common paralance or something referencing the fact that this is a popular definition. On top of that, I think we should say "the induced abortion procedure" not just "induced abortion". Slightly unrelated, for some reason, I can't help feeling like G&E did months ago when there was a perceived consensus for my proposal. Should we make a poll and take it to the main talk page, or just assume that everyone's silence is support? I still think that this version is only marginally better than the last, and doesn't address the big POV issues that started this whole section. But if I am the only one concerned, I'm not going to push anything.--Andrew c 00:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

In common parlance, abortion refers to the induced abortion procedure and can take place at any gestational age, although late-term abortions are rare. Medically, abortion refers to any termination of a pregnancy before viability, including miscarriages and induced procedures.

Something along those lines.. but this seems to make the first reference to miscarriages redundent. But then again, I feel that we shouldn't mention miscarriages outside of the context of the medical definition. Hmm... I should probably think on this some more. Any thoughts?--Andrew c 01:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't like common parlance anymore; I'll change generally to commonly right now though. Good call. I'll be bold and remove "usually". Tweaked your proposal to link to LTA properly. I have no trouble adding the LTA mention as you have it; if you think it doesn't add undue weight. Were you able to successfully rebut arguments of "rare" being a POV/OR word?

I'm also unsure how adding "procedure" clarifies anything. The first instance could be inaccurate (not all are "procedures") and the second while more appropriate just says "induced procedure", what is that? And I just don't see the medical definition needing it to be a procedure. Trauma and abortificients cause induced abortions prior to 20 weeks, but I doubt they are procedures. Right?

As to "death" I'll argue anyone to the ground on that. I simply have not heard of anything (apart from "termination") that comes close to replacing it. The only rationale I can come up is we use neutral terminology in the rest of the first sentence; why not carry that to the end. For some reason all the "issues" we've had over it, actually makes me think it was the correct decision. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Tweaked non-viable > nonviable. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry it took my awhile to get back to you. I never convinced the few objectors that "rare" was an acceptible term. They argued that any statistics coming from AGI were biased, and that anything over 1,000 (even if it is under 0.1%) is not "rare". But, they didn't convince me abortions on viable fetuses weren't "rare" either, so its a stand off. We could always add it and let other editors change it, but that may lead to an edit war. I think that "procedure" is a very important aspect of the common definition. When someone says "I had an abortion" they mean that they had an induced abortion procedure. If someone is in a car accident and loose their baby, they may say they miscarried or something else. Abortion is not the common word here. Medically speaking, the fetus was aborted, but commonly and abortion (i.e. induced abortion procedure) did not occur. But I won't push it too hard.

As for "death", I think this is a very touchy subject. We have a large number of definitions that do not mention death. Because the debate is framed around life vs. death, death is in particular a sticky word. And furthermore, it seems unnecessary to mention death. Meat causes death, but why is this word not mentioned in the first sentence of that article? Chemotherapy causes the death of cancer cells, why is this not mentioned in the first sentence? The reason why death is so important, is not because someone may accidentally think the word "abortion" is refering to a live birth, but within the context of the greater debate, framing a fetus' death is closely associated with arguments for personhood. I think this is shown by some individuals wanting to qualify death with "cellular" or wanting to change "fetus" to "products of conception", and other individuals strongly opposing this because it is the fetal death that is significant to their POV, not the death of cells, or the death of the placenta (which scientifically 'die' just as much as the fetus). My biggest concern is that abortion can obviously be defined without referencing death, and including death seems superfluous and arguable borderline POV pushing.--Andrew c 00:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I see where you're going with on procedure, and I was about to add it. But then I looked at the Wikipedia definition for procedure. As its defined as treating "disease" or "injury" in the surgery lead; I think this could cause more problems than it addresses. I gave Google a quick look and both PubMed and Pro-Life doctors refer to it as a procedure, so I'll go ahead and put it in; but I won't link it as I had planned.

Indeed "death" sucks, but as I mentioned prior "fetus" and "embryo" suck for pro-lifers, and it can be maintained that terminology is borderline POV pushing for pro-choicers. Death provides the balance I think is required and essential. I had already come up with a potential solution, which is putting back the paragraph about the debate which mentions "murder" and "women's rights". This allows strong language from both perspectives and makes the mention of "death" less necessary in the first sentence. Without a solid pro-life perspective in the lead, death is staying, as it is sympathetic to the other perspective on abortion. Not only that, but death is more encyclopedic (in some respects) than "termination".

What irks me about "death", isn't the fact its pro-life language etc. etc., but that pro-lifers insist it has to be in the first sentence. As I don't see it as a necessity but rather editorial decision on our part it does bother me it has been forced there. However, given the current structure of the lead, that's the only place it can go. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 13:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Struck out abortion as it is no longer in the live lead. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The lead is wrong

The lead is wrong. Missed abortion is a type of abortion, in which the embryo/fetus is not removed from the body, the lead is basically incorrect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ackoz (talk • contribs) 20:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ackoz is correct. Suggest:

An abortion is the removal or expulsion from the uterus of an embryo or fetus, resulting in or caused by its death. This can occur spontaneously as a miscarriage, or be artificially induced through chemical, surgical or other means. Commonly, "abortion" refers to an induced abortion procedure at any point in the pregnancy; medically, it is defined as a miscarriage or induced termination before twenty weeks gestation, which is considered nonviable. The exception is a "missed abortion" in which the embryo or fetus dies but is not expelled. Missed abortions are usually followed by spontaneous abortions.

REF: http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic3309.htm

Alternate suggestion: Omit missed abortions from intro; mention in Spontaneous section. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how he's correct. Miscarriage is integrated into the first sentence, hence the words "expulsion" and "caused by". Those are there precisely to cover missed abortion. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm liking the alternate proposal. --InShaneee 20:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it fits - the term itself is in decline, and our own Missed abortion is a redirect to Miscarriage, because almost always a missed abortion is followed by a spontaneous - but not always, in which case a surgical abortion is called for. And I can dig up a source for that but currently (here on talk) I am speaking from personal knowledge - my grandmother had a late in life pregnancy which resulted in a missed abortion, and they had to do the surgical version on her. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think cause by its death still covers missed abortion. Granted it occurs in two stages and involves natural and artificial elements... but it was initially "caused" by the death of the fetus, then required further intervention to "remove" it. I'm unsure we need to spell that out, just as mentioning late-term abortions in the lead isn't a "must have"; one can infer it from the Commonly definition. Likewise, although missed isn't mentioned, the first sentence is structured with or's so that "removal of the fetus caused by its death" is one way to read it. I don't see the fire. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

And just to clarify further, a missed abortion occurs spontaneously; so again its covered. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, we could also write something along the lines of "aimed at" or "intending" - which then makes clear why a "missed abortion" is "missed" or a "failed abortion" is "failed". Just a thought. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be applicable in the case of a failed abortion but not a missed one. In a missed one, the pregnant woman has every intention of carrying the pregnancy to term and delivery (or at least has done nothing otherwise) but the embryo or fetus dies within her. It is a traumatic experience, and not something anyone tries to do. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. My mistake. I was misinterpreting the above. Completely agree with you. Anyway, having now read your second post I think the current wording can stand despite this "exception". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring over the lead is really not going to help anything. Ackoz, you have some good points. Have you checked out any of the backlog at Talk:Abortion/First paragraph? This argument has gone on for months and months, and if you want to talk about slaps in the face, you're just ignoring all the hours of discussion that went into the version you've decided is wrong. Please don't edit war the intro. Not all medical sources agree on the definition of abortion, it turns out. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

For example, Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, a reliable, verifiable source, has: "the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus." -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

InShaneee

You could've searched it yourself. Let's use the official WHO (World Health Organisation should be a trusted source, oder?) definition of abortion:

Abortion is termination of pregnancy (expulsion or extraction of embryo/fetus) before 22 weeks of gestation or below 500 g weight of fetus.

http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/publications/MSM_94_11/MSM_94_11_annexe3.en.html

You could have waited with the revert. That was kinda slap in my face. Now please be so good and add the reference to the article. I don't know how to do that :-) ackoz 21:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes .. and we can use the whole definition (even with the expulsion or extraction) as the main idea of the definition is "termination of pregnancy", and missed abortion is a terminated pregnancy. ackoz 21:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, nothing you've said here adequately addresses the reasons we had the intro the way we did. Namely, you're choosing, like medical sources choose, to frame the defintion of abortion in a way that assumes the pro-choice side of the debate. To define abortion as WHO does is to grant that the pro-life side is just wrong, and that abortion is not a life and death issue, fundamentally. I'm not a huge fan of the other version, which essentially grants the pro-life side the opportunity to frame the debate, but I was hoping to do some work on the to-do list before resurrecting that particular dead horse. Nevertheless, here we are. The definition you're suggesting is POV, and you're ignoring, not even deeming worth reply, the months of reasons backing up the version you don't like. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I find 500 grams interesting, and a suitable supplement to the medical definition. What does Andrew c have to say? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You rang? 500g vs. 20 weeks vs. viablity. They all relate. It is extremely rare for a fetus to survive outside of the womb before 20 weeks gestation. It is rare for a fetus under 500g to survive. Because not all pregnancies are the same, there is not one single thing that you can point to and say "ah ha, if we took the fetus out now, it would survive". This is why I prefer the more vague term "viable", even if it isn't as precise as a numerical criteria, or combination there of. Anyway, I think fetal deaths under 500g are not considered neonatal by some definitions. It's all about relatively arbitrary categories for statistical purposes. --Andrew c 04:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well said, but is 500 grams part of enough medical definition(s), and if so do you consider it notable enough for inclusion in the abortion lead? Or is it a minor issue, only brought up by WHO and a few others? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be part of a substantial proportion of the medical definitions we've seen here. The thing with medical definitions is, as Ackoz has reminded us, they're more "diagnostic criteria" than definitions. Medicine allows for some grey area and doesn't worry too much about it. In general, if it's before viability, usually taken to be around 20 weeks or 500 grams, then it counts. If it's borderline, then you make a judgement and call it something. Doctors are comfortable with that kind of "definition" because they're neither philosophers nor mathematicians. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

WHO and Merriam-Webster

WHO (World Health Organisation) is superior to USA private company's dictionary, Merriam Webster. This definition is legally binding. You cannot diagnose an abortion if it doesn't meet this criteria + when it meets this criteria, it is abortion. What else do you want? Use legal, worldwide, functioning definitions, do not search consensus in the middle of your particular beliefs. This should be online encyclopedia, not editor's manifesto on abortion. WHO has nothing to do with pro-life or pro-choice. ackoz 22:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

OK and don't talk about months of incompetent reasons. Half of you is pro-life and half pro-choice, you have your battle here. That doesn't change the definition which was created and is used by professionals, is clearly understandable and binding. ackoz 22:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ackoz, you have no idea what my personal beliefs are. Let's not bring those into it. Your assertion that WHO has nothing to do with pro-life or pro-choice is... questionable. I don't happen to think that the current version is ideal, but... have you read the backlog? Wikipedia is not a medial sourcebook, it's written for a general audience. It's important to include the medical definition, but that doesn't mean we pretend it's the only one. For a lot of people, abortion is defined differently. There is not universal agreement that WHO's definition is the only valid one. There is a widely held belief that WHO's definition is an exercise in euphemism. We can't just steamroll that notion under the carpet. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur, no-ones beliefs, or lack thereof, are relevant at all. I have linked the sub-page on Ackoz' talk page, he can familiarize himself with the discussion there.

Word of advice: Repeating yourself is not illuminating; stating variations on "I am right and you are wrong" is beyond unhelpful, it is counter-productive. I strongly suggest you read WP:CIVIL and attempt to treat your fellow editors with a little more courtesy and patience. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Y'know, Ackoz is right that the current definition gives too much to the pro-life side, allowing abortion to be defined in their chosen terms. This too-soon reawakening of the debate is good evidence that we aren't there yet. I'd really love to attack the to-do list before working on the lead again, though... -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree on both points - that last debate took months, but as you see above my first response was "He's right." However, we now have two issues with the intro - is it accurate and non-biased, and the way Ackoz is approaching this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no other way to approach it. As I already said on your talkpage KillerChihuahua, wikipedia is NOT a democracy and I went ahead and corrected a factually incomplete article - the intro is now better - it is shorter, contains the official definition AND includes the 500 g thing. PLUS there is no pro-choice or pro-life in it, as it is just the barebone codified definition for diagnostic use. I am really proud of myself. G'night ackoz 23:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Pro-life people would clarify a "barebone codified definition for diagnostic use" is a pro-choice definition, removing any emotion or hint of controversy on the issue. I applaud your goals, but your attempt of neutrality through sticking strictly to the medical definition is, I think, impractical for an encyclopedia. Even one with a scientific preference. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to make a terribly outrageous proposal, but why not simply use my two definition version as a more stable, but still temporary place holder for the illusive white whale of a "perfect" opener. I feel that the 2 definition version deals with the POV issues better by not attempting to create a so-called 'neutral' definition that neither side seems to be able to agree upon. The biggest concerns were that G&E and patsw didn't think the scientific POV was 'accurate', and AnnH thought putting the scientific view first was giving it too much prominence. Maybe these issues can be tackled another day, but we could ease a number of the "death" concerns with my version (that still includes the death POV). I only bring this up because we have a version that a large number of editors have had their hands in, so we may not need to start from scratch for the 4th time. But I agree strongly with GTB that too much time has been invested in these few phrases when there IS still a to do list. --Andrew c 04:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

All I needed at the time was a solid rationale that put the medical definition first in an encyclopedia (addressing AnnH's concern) and I would have gone with it. I asked for help on that and didn't get much, so I dropped it rather than trying to come up with and enforce something on my own. We do have the two definitions, the only potential problem I see is "death". No solution I've seen will resolve that any time soon. As to pro-choicers feeling entitled to removing an injustice; simply because of a word that has political connotations in their eyes... ain't a compelling reason to change the lead.

Anyway, yes... new bold editors engaging in edit wars needn't concern the entire abortion article; unless we feel the need to re-engage in another circus... soooooo, for the record I'd support Abortion/First paragraph now that I've tweaked out mass media and put in the new stuff that is agreed upon in the current lead. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmmm... but I still see nonviable as a problem, as you just pointed out above there is no solid criteria for that. But I have stated to Homestarmy's objections that viability doesn't need to be foolproof in order for medicine to include viability in its definition. Maybe I am still conflicted about it. :"D It would be nice if we could include "considered" and 20 weeks gestation in the first sentence. Think that could work? RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

WHO Intro

GTBacchus, I am not interested in your personal beliefs. I already participated in the discussion KillerChihuahua pointed me to. I have read enough. Read the article WHO. In healthcare in general, ther is no bigger autority on Earth. Moreover, the definition I proposed is the "codified" definition of abortion in most of the countries I know about - it is used to create statistics of mortality and birth-rates etc., and is unified because the data must be comparable. So now we have two definitions:

• Official definition of abortion, as used in legal systems and by health care providers worldwide.
• A result of a long discussion of Wikipedia editors, who are mostly unqualified and pushing their POV in either pro-life or pro-choice direction. A hybrid. The intro doesnt't even contain factual information about the 500 g limit - which defines abortion (i.e. the article as it is now is factually inaccurate). One of the problems with editors of wikipedia is, that they think that the consensus they reach in their petty little arguments represents the ultimate wisdom.

I suggest that we change the intro to contain the "WHO" definition. ackoz 23:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ackoz, if you're not interested in my personal beliefs, why do you keep alluding to them, as if you have any idea what they are? I haven't brought them up at all. I'd appreciate if we keep this non-personal, thank you.

I agree that we should include the WHO definition, and I invite you to considering the practical matter of how you do that, given the crowd of people watching this article. Have you familiarized yourself with the section Talk:Abortion/First paragraph#Spinoff discussion?? I suspect the seeds of the best intro we can write lie in there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to do it this way, ok. I think the medical definition is enough. ackoz 23:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Since we aren't a medical dictionary; whether or not the WHO definition is legally binding and authoritative in healthcare isn't paramount here. As already mentioned the WHO definition is important, but your rationale is not. Please be more sensitive to the consensus; its there for a reason. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia, as RoyBoy says, isn't a medical sourcebook. Abortion, it turns out, is not just a medical procedure. It's also a controversial social and religious issue. In that context, the medical definition is irrelevant to many, for whom the only important thing is whether or not a developing human is being killed. If abortion only means pre-viability, then "abortion opponents" shouldn't have any problem with so-called "late-term abortions", right? I'm not even certain the medical definition is the most widely used one, which doesn't make it wrong, it just doesn't get a monopoly in the intro. GTBacchus^(talk) 07:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Is the WHO definition still an issue? If so, it may help to know that their definitions are mainly intended for statistical (reporting) purposes (see ICD). The purpose of these definitions is NOT to inform the lay public on the nature of the disease/condition/intervention in question. Also, the ICD is only legally binding in connection with (inter)national stats etc. of countries that have adopted it. Obviously it isn't legally binding for an encyclopedia in general, let alone in an article mainly describing induced abortion. AvB ÷ talk 00:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be logical to also put some information in there about how to get pregnant. These tips can help you get pregnant, but can also be seen as tips on how to stay away from pregnancy.

First-sentence comparison.

Take a look at Abortion in the United States, where it starts off with the following text:

In a medical sense, the word abortion refers to any pregnancy that does not end in live birth. In the debate, however, abortion is almost always used to mean "induced abortion," as contrasted to "spontaneous abortion" or "miscarriage".

Why is this fork more neutral and accurate than the main article?! It's embarassing. Al 16:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

While it is more neutral, this prose is less straight forward "does not end". Also describing something by a negative is unencyclopedic IMO... unless of course that is how it is actually defined; and the medical def. seems conspicuously non-specific. The second sentence is great. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, abortion is defined in contrast to carrying a pregnancy to term, so that's perfectly normal. Note, however, that there is no D word here, yet it's quite clear and accurate. Al 04:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

My comment on "actually defined" was in regard to its medical definition; and that may be how medical sources define it. I understand you regard the sentence as better than our current first sentence; and something like it should be adopted so that we can avoid death.

But I contend it is less clear as it specifies what abortion is not, rather than what it is. This approach wasn't used for that reason... "not a live birth" defines abortion, but it does not explain it. With that description it can allow the fetus to be absorbed by the mother and be called an abortion; while that doesn't occur of course, not defining what abortion actually is doesn't help one understand it. I agree its accurate and appropriate for a sub-page on abortion. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be fairly useless to define an aardvark as an animal that is not an elephant. After all, there are more precise, positive definitions available. In contrast, we define an axolotl as a salamander that, even when sexually mature, does not leave its larval stage.

The question, then, is whether abortion is more like an aardvark or an axolotl. I suggest the latter. The hint is that abortion is a catch-all for any pregnancy that is not carried to term, for whatever reason. Al 06:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I should have tweaked "doesn't help one understand it" to "doesn't clearly encompass it". I agree it encompasses and defines abortion, but what it comes down to, is using "not live" or "not born" or "not carried to term" is less clear and not summarized; and especially using positive words like "live" to describe a termination simply isn't the right direction and swings the first paragraph pro-choice. If anything the Abortion in the United States lead should be tweaked first.

Yes, "death" biases the first sentence to pro-life; however not decidedly so. Many pro-choicers disagree; but I believe that is occuring because they have gotten use to their own politically correct verbiage on the issue; and have a real distaste for pro-life's reliance on such emotive language. Wikipedia doesn't rely on it, just uses it when appropriate; this cultural war of words needn't dictate acceptable words. There is of course good reason to not like "death", as fetuses that miscarry had no chance at a full life as they were non-viable (although its still technically correct that it dies); hence my growing preference for "termination"... although terminations failing is its a big word; not something we want a lot of in a lead and/or defining sentence. (in the medical definition context its appropriate)

"Death" remains clearer and shorter (more encyclopedic) than "does not end in live birth", while "termination" is more neutral. The United States lead doesn't change that in my opinion, rather that lead is a very subtle reminder of western countries cultural war of words... as does the Abortion lead, although more overt of course. Which is not ideal, but okay given the rest of the lead is sympathetic and neutral to abortion. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The only problem I have with the dreaded "D" word is that for humans in most countries in the world there are specific legal definitions for life and death requiring registration and (usually) certificates. By using the word "death" here it effectively accepts the position that life begins at conception which is not accepted legally or by many people. Sophia 16:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's part of the unfortunate baggage of the "death" term. Death isn't merely biological, it is inherently a legal status. Consider that a person can be declared legally dead after being missing for a few years. More delicately, consider that someone considered dead in one jurisdiction may be considered alive in another. This is not a mere triviality: remember Terri Shiavo? "Death" is not only legally and emotionally encumbered but controversial. Contrast this with the neutral, medical "does not end in live birth". User:Alienus 17:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem however is, Sophia and Ali, that if we leave out the D word because of your baggage concern we might prevent any POV deductions on one side but start up POV deductions on the other side ("no problem with abortion) and also misstate biological reality, namely that death occurs. "Legal" death is another matter and the declaration of someone missing to be dead does not, as you will undoubtedly agree, kill that missing person, if still alive. The Terri Schiavo case is completely off topic, as she was both biologically and legally alive. Otherwise there would have been no legal struggle, no matter how anyone thinks about that issue. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that's exactly wrong. The whole issue in the Shiavo case is that she wasn't alive. Sure, she had a heartbeat but her brain was fried. This is a fine example of two different meanings of death, and the legal mess that these differences cause. The phrase "does not end in live birth" does not have the baggage that "results in death" does, which is why it's preferable. Al 19:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Str1977 that we're on a tightrope, trying not to take on either side's baggage. Perhaps this is a good time to recall #Spinoff discussion? above, in which I suggested a version that actually addresses the fact of competing baggages in the opening paragraph. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Since we are talking about the d-word again, I'll restate my position. While a certain form of death does occur (obviously cellular death), other, more common uses of the word death are debated. Because one side thinks that the death of the fetus IS the defining aspect of abortion, it seems POV pushing to slip that aspect in. We have a large number of medical sources and dictionaries that can define abortion without using the d-word. I do not think that someone is going to come to wikipedia, have no idea what an abortion is, read our opening paragraph, and concluse that a premature birth or c-section is actually a type of abortion. My solution was to admit that there are POV in any definition, and to use two different definitions (medical vs. common, where the latter did use the D-word, just not in the lead). Finally, I think bringing up Schiavo is relevent because a significant portion of her brain was dead. It is a sticky issue, and death (at least one of the less common usages of the word) did apply. Similarly, a less common use of the word death obviously applies to an aborted fetus, but more common usages of the word are debated. Not being clear about what we mean by "death", or bringing that debate up in the first sentence seems to belong more to abortion debate than defining the actual procedure. If we can define chemotherapy without mentioning the death of the cancer cells in the lead, if we can define meat without refering to the death of animals in the lead, etc, I think we can define abortion without menting death in the lead. I think everyone agrees that the d-word does slant things towards a POV. (just as adding the death of animals in meat would tilt towards the vegetarian POV). --Andrew c 18:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Al 19:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Andrew, but I don't think we can just ignore the debate in the lead. Defining abortion as if it isn't about death is already taking the stance that it isn't, just as defining it as if it is about death, is already taking the stance that it is. Neither is neutral. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll start version 6.0. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Version 6.0

An abortion is the removal or expulsion from the uterus of an embryo or fetus, resulting in or caused by its termination. This can occur spontaneously as a miscarriage, or be artificially induced through chemical, surgical or other means.

The common definition of abortion is not universally agreed upon because of moral disagreements. Some define abortion as any induced procedure resulting in the death of an embryo or fetus. Others dispute the validity of this definition based on legal requirements of death and/or differing perspectives on personhood and when a life begins. Medically, abortion is defined as a miscarriage or induced termination before twenty weeks gestation, which is considered nonviable.

There have been various methods of inducing abortion throughout history. The moral and legal aspects of abortion are the subject of intense debate in many parts of the world.

Original template:

An abortion is a type of termination of a pregnancy. The definition of abortion is not universally agreed upon. From a medical perspective it is variously defined as XXXXX, YYYYY, or ZZZZZ.</ref, etc.> From a legal or moral perspective, some define an abortion as any procedure resulting in the death of an embryo or fetus.</ref> Others dispute the validity of this definition.</ref>

Comments:

Wikified and merged with version 5.2. The first paragraph should remain a straight forward definition; the moral quibbles aren't relevant to defining what an abortion is. Moved "moral" as it implies one is moral and the other is not; placed it at the beginning as a definition can be agreed, but the morality is at issue. Added "common" as the technical definition (1st paragraph) is not in dispute.

There are two problems with this version for me, putting termination (a technical term) in the defining sentence; and almost brings back the "debate of abortion" into the "abortion" lead. Although this time, we are focused on the definition of abortion itself... so might be alright. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the whole point of my version is to put off the precise definition until we've addressed the fact that it's gonna be POV, and that's why we're giving two. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The technical definition needn't be buried for that to take place; and what is "it"? From my perspective we are talking about how it is commonly spoke of, which can be set apart from a dry technical definition. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No, not buried. But any "straightforward definition" given unequivocally as the definition, puts us in one camp or the other. The current article's definition is the pro-life side's favored one. Replacing it with the pro-choice definition is a step sideways, and I'm not going to all the trouble for one of those.

What I meant by "it's gonna be POV" is that any definition is going to be POV - all the words we can use have been claimed by one side or the other. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

We are on the same page with sidestepping, that's why you and I supported "death". But termination hasn't really claimed by any one side, although it is slightly pro-choice as a technical term; so seems to be the best word. While I'm interested to see how this plays out, my immediate thought is, this would end up being a really subtle disclaimer... instead of a summary straight forward lead. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

My basic suggestion is this: acknowledge that there exist multiple definitions, then give some. "Termination" in the first sentence of the template above could be replaced with "ending" and I'd be just as happy, if not happier with it. You're right about "termination" being slightly pro-choice. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Doing it that way does immediately clarify there is "a" controversy. On the flip side I don't want that controversy to take precedent over giving an immediate summary definition like Encarta or any other encyclopedia. What I'm getting at is there actually isn't meaningful multiple definitions on what abortion is; rather there is multiple perspectives (morality) expressed as a matter of style rather than substance (objective description). Placing the controversy first doesn't seem encyclopedic, and could actually confuse the reader into thinking there is controversy over what an abortion actually is (rather than a controversy over the moral implications of an abortion). So that's why I'm still pretty sure any controversy is secondary to a summary description. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a controversy over what an abortion is. There are multiple definitions, one framed medically, one framed morally. Neither is more correct, and to say that one the definition is to pick a side. GTBacchus^(talk) 21:57, May 29, 2006 (UTC)

Okay... ummm, maybe we should leave v5.2; as we were clever enough to incorporate both. :'D Going into the controversy immediately seems like a great compromise, but bad style? Especially when compared to other encyclopedias. If we were to go forward on v6.x, I would say the medical definition can take precedence (as it does in other encyclopedias/sources) as we are encouraged to be sympathetic to the subject matter. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ending eh... seems a poor word to use... as if the fetus was a story that is ending. Terminate is technical (hence pro-choice), already used in the lead, but I prefer it over "ending". The reason ending sounds wrong, is even though "termination" is technically part of its primary definition; it is hardly ever used in that context. The second definition "conclusion" is more likely how it would be read, which is confusing and sounds awkward. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

An abortion is the removal or expulsion from the uterus of an embryo or fetus, resulting in or caused by its ending. This can occur spontaneously as a miscarriage, or be artificially induced through chemical, surgical or other means.

You wrote "Terminate is technical (hence pro-choice)". This is completely wrong.

Terminate is technical, hence neutral. Unfortunately, the "pro-life" groups would like to replace neutral, technical terminology with highly emotive and inaccurate terms. A rejection of this language game does not mean endorsing the opposing position. There is such a thing as neutrality, after all.

If you're going to keep making this mistake, then I will have to oppose any suggestion you make that is based on it. Al 21:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not do something like "termination (death)", with "death" in parenthesis, its like canceling out the strong pro-life connotation of it and I think it might balance it out, it does to me anyway. Homestarmy

Intriguing possibility, but with this new version I was trying to push any moral (emotional) language to the second paragraph. As death is there, it makes death in the first paragraph less necessary. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, technical language simply is not neutral, any more than emotive language is - one side sees it as a technical concept, not an emotive one. The other side doesn't care about technicalities, and sees it as a moral issue. Agreeing that abortion is primarily a technical type of procedure is POV, because for many, that's not what it primarily is. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Noted, but any language that situates abortion in technical (rather than emotional) terms is inherantly pro-choice. (after all, doctors who perform abortions use that word!) While I entirely agree its neutral, hence my preference for it, I cannot ignore the fact such language is considered POV by pro-lifers (removes moral considerations); similarly death is considered POV by pro-choicers (can imply personhood). However, since Wikipedia articles should indeed be sympathetic to its subject; termination is appropriate weight wise... at the same time despite appearances, I'm not in a rush to make version 6 live. Mainly because I'm concerned technical language is inappropriate for the defining sentence... then again we have embryo and fetus in the lead already; but termination could be pushing it for the first sentence. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The current live version seems the best one avaiable, since neither side with an agenda to push could feel that their POV is adequately represented in that version. While some (primarily those with pro-choice inclinations) may contend that including "death" in the first paragraph is biased, the same could be said by others (generally those with pro-life convictions) regarding the lead's use of "fetus". That said, the term "death", even if viewed as somewhat inaccurate, seems to be a more suitable description for what occurs to the fetus than a "termination" or "ending". The current version balances some perceived emotion with a healthy dose of reasoned text - why change it? By the way, kudos to everyone involved here for the sprit of co-operation and willingness to compromise. If only we could see something similar at Mother Teresa... Brisvegas 11:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No mention of pregnancy?

It was recently pointed out on another talk page that the current paragraph includes killing of pre-implanted embryos (which things like hormonal contraceptives and IUDs are suspected to sometimes do) in the abortion definition. Was this intentional? Lyrl 22:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point. I guess it depends on what definition of "embryo" you are using, but there has to be a way to clear that up. I always felt that "termination of a pregnancy" is a very very common phrase used in the cited definitions. However, some users objected because a) in the case of selective abortions (a minority for sure), the pregnancy isn't ended, just one (or more) of the multiple implants are removed and b) some users felt "termination" was a euphamism, although I was never convinced of this argument. Termination is used in the medical literature, in dictionary definitions, etc. Also, there are uses of the word "terminate" that connote negative things (terminator, exterminate, etc), so I don't see how it is used to 'soften' the reality of abortion. Maybe the next version could slip in "termination of a pregnancy" somewhere?--Andrew c 00:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was at some point. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Death?

Removed part of first line - how can a fetus/embryo die if it has never been born? Saying that abortion results in death is POV - and after searching, I can find no reputable source that also calls abortion death --Cooper-42 11:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This wording was the result of extensive debate. Please refer to Talk:Abortion/First paragraph and its archives. -Severa (!!!) 12:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I can find few reputable sources that do (two out of nine) - The wikitionary doesn't, it is an 'operation to end pregnancy' accoring to MSN Encarta no mention of death in FreeDictionary whilst Dictionary.com has seven sources - Dictionary.com unabridged, American Heritage Dictionary, American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary, WordNet and CanerWEB online medical dictionary make no mention of death - the word death only appears in the Merriam Webster's Dictionaries of Law and Medicine.

Are there any more that call it death? --Cooper-42 11:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

And just looking at that archive - someone catalogued medical sources, 14 had no mention, 7 made a mention, of which only 3 of those included it in the definition - are wiki editors in the habit of contradicting medical definitions? --Cooper-42 12:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It is death, in the technical sense, but the word 'death' has rather negative connotations. Perhaps we should consider a more clinical term. 'Termination', perhaps. -- Ec5618 12:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The vast majority of medical definitions are variations on 'termination of pregnancy' - why is the wikipedia different?--Cooper-42 12:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

We have discussed this countless times. That death occurs during an abortion is an undisputable biological fact, though what it is that dies might be contentious. To leave out the fact of death is POV pushing to one side, just as "Abortion is the killing of an unborn human person" would be POV pushing to the other side. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but what about termination of pregnancy? -- Ec5618 12:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct, but not enough. Avoiding the "death issue" by silencing the fact that death occurs (regardless of how one judges this fact) is POV pushing in its most extreme form. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The current listing is a compromise between two strong POV's. We must reject your replacement of "death" with "termination" for the same reason that we must reject the replacement I favor: "living human being" with "fetus or embryo." --BCSWowbagger 18:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so:

Ovulation & Menstruation: The death, disentigration and expulsion of an unfertilised egg?

Sneezing: A ... convulsive expulsion of air from the nose and mouth... Resulting in the death of thousands of human brain cells?

No one is going to use death in these contexts, as death is a weighted word. Yes, it is a death, yes, death occurs. If all of use here were medical professionals, we would probably accept it. But we are not, and death has connotations beyond clinical definition. Connotations which are not neutral. --Cooper-42 23:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

So is "termination of pregnancy" weighted--weighted towards sterility and a hiding of what takes place during an abortion. Would you rename the article "death" to "termination"? Would you say that terrorists "terminate" civillians? No. That's ridiculous. And POV. Again, we have a compromise here, between two competing and implacable POV's. The use of "death" is usually applied only to living human beings, which is why it isn't applied to cells and ova--and precisely why it is appropriate for this article, especially as we do not note in our definition that a human life, not a clump of random cells, is the object of an abortion. To adopt my definition would take the article too far to the pro-life POV; to adopt yours would take it too far pro-choice.

The top paragraph is one of the most-edited paragraphs on Wikipedia, arrived at through one of the most painstaking, contentious consensus processes in Wikipedia history. Trust me when I say that this is as accurate and NPOV as it can be. Any further major adjustments, especially without first consulting the Talk page (which you did not do until after your edit, I note) is simply provocation, intended or not, for a massive edit war.--BCSWowbagger 00:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't formed an opinion on the use of 'death' yet but I don't really agree with the argument you're using BCSWowbagger when you said "Would you rename the article "death" to "termination"?" It's not a valid parallel example - civilians are clearly fully formed individuals whereas there is no current concensus (and there won't be one here right now) on whether embryos/fetuses are in fact individuals. Still Cooper-42 should've obviously proposed the change on the Talk page. If there are others interested I think we should open it up for debate/vote? - I may have missed it but I didn't see a clear dissemination on the usage of the word 'death' in the archive you pointed out. --Artificialard 05:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I was not trying to draw a direct parallel to the article. I was drawing a parallel to Cooper-42's argument, where he complained that we don't use "death" for cells, and trying to show that neither my parallel nor his were valid - cells are clearly not individuals and there is a strong consensus on that, so obviously we wouldn't use "death" for them, just as we wouldn't use "termination" for full-formed human beings. My point has been, and continues to be, that we have a compromise definition, that shares in language from both POV's in order to acheive the most delicate of NPOV balances. If we open death/termination up for a vote, I propose we do the same for "embryo and fetus" with "living human being," a motion that was proposed and struck down several weeks ago on the very POV grounds with which I am arguing. --BCSWowbagger 07:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification - that makes much more now and in fact sways me in favor of your side of the current argument. I agree that changing the current definition or bringing it up to a definitive vote would probably open a can of worms and would negate a significant amount of prior collaboration to make it NPOV. Is there any possible way to work both sides into the statement? I'm thinking about this more and maybe able to propose an example later.--Artificialard 16:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Termination will do the trick but I don't believe death is incorrect, should we leave it at that. A biology question: If something is born alive is that to say it was ever dead? Do dead things become alive? Even more so: Is anyone here actually claiming there is some state that transcends life and death? Regardless, either word will work, let's just try to quelle the masses in what we pick.--Talv 04:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Abortion is, at its most neutral, a medical term.

"An abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus" is accurate and NPOV, the bit about death, is 'tacked on' at the end... Why?

As shown previously, the tiny minority of medical definitions actually refer to abortion as the 'death' of the fetus/embryo. Is the wikipedia in the habit of re-writing/re-phrasing academic definitions? --Cooper-42 09:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah. A change of tactics, I see. However much we might like to pencil abortion into single categories that suit us best (and may make things easier to write), as a broadly-spanning encyclopedia, we can't just refer to it as a medical issue. If it did not cause the death of the embryo, no one would care about abortion; we have to acknowledge why people care in our lead paragraphs. That is, we must consider not merely the medical dimension of abortion, but also the ethical and moral dimensions in our opening. At least, that's the way I see it. Seriously, man, you may not mean to, but you are coming across as desperately pushing a POV in an attempt to bury this simple biological fact around which the entire abortion debate turns. Artificialard: thanks for understanding. If you come up with a good idea, I'd be glad to hear it, but I fear this one may be as impossible to fix as the famous WikiProject: Abortion Stub template. --BCSWowbagger 21:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Having just "An abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus." would make the term abortion include c-sections and natural births. Talv: the fetus is definately alive the question is if that living thing is a person yet. After birth (and the umbilical cord is cut) the living creature is now an individual human. Calling it a person before birth is POV as is saying that it is not a person, saying that it is not alive is wrong. BCSWowbagger: I wouldn't say that "death" is only applied to "living human beings", death can be applied to any living creature (including a fetus), death can definately apply to horses,dogs, cats etc... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.97.4.189 (talk • contribs).

Hmm... true on all counts, Mr. Unsigned. I bow to your correction. --BCSWowbagger 21:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)